Impressions from a long time MSFS(Aces) developer

[eslader 1,783]

15 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

The way he says it's a step backwards sounds very strange to me.

My wife bought a Hyundai Veloster the first year they were available. They're slow by modern standards, but look neat and have fun handling. She joined a Veloster forum for awhile and was surprised at how many people were comparing it unfavorably to the much older Honda CRX (which I happen to have in the stable). One of the most common complaints was how much faster their old CRX's were than the Veloster.  Really? The fastest US version of the CRX did 0-60 within a tenth of a second of the Veloster. 

But their memories were confused because since the CRX went out of production in 1991 people have been adding turbos, and superchargers, and swapping in bigger engines, etc. Yes, the heavily modified CRX is much faster than a Veloster.

I think that's a lot of what's happening with this dev. He probably hasn't run a bone-stock install of FSX since about 6 months after it released. So yeah, compared to FSX with tons of addons, MSFS with none is a step backward. But if we're comparing like to like we need to strip out all of the 3rd party content (and if we're being honest, the FSX service packs too since those weren't available on release day) and then run the comparison. I bet he'd change his mind.

 

[pjs37 319]

5 minutes ago, eslader said:

I think that's a lot of what's happening with this dev. He probably hasn't run a bone-stock install of FSX since about 6 months after it released. So yeah, compared to FSX with tons of addons, MSFS with none is a step backward. But if we're comparing like to like we need to strip out all of the 3rd party content (and if we're being honest, the FSX service packs too since those weren't available on release day) and then run the comparison. I bet he'd change his mind.

 

Absolutely this.  If you look at the list of what is missing from MFS you see things like Payware Quality airports and planes...I mean this is a base sim for $60.  You aren't going to get a Aerosoft Airport flying a PMDG 737 out of the box for $60.  Those developers will of course make their products for the new sim and like usual it will take time for them to do so. We go through this with every sim release.

[ryanbatc 12,857]

On 8/26/2020 at 2:27 AM, ErichB said:

 

'A step back for real pilots and serious simmers'?  Give me a break.

In its current state it certainly is.  The avionics are worthless.  The flight modeling is just alright.  I agree it will get better though.  

[Der Zeitgeist 1,575]

1 minute ago, ryanbatcund said:

The avionics are worthless.

Come on, that's just silly.

[snglecoil 1,828]

7 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Come on, that's just silly.

Except that it's not.

[Der Zeitgeist 1,575]

11 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Except that it's not.

Let me ask another way then. Worthless, compared to what?

[n4gix 4,947]

3 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

I don't see why this is a continuing issue for you guys? I don't see anything egregious or even problematic at all.

A very large percentage of AVSIM members and visitors are using a mobile device to log in and read the forums. Some of them also have data caps on their provider's plan. Worst of all, they are limited to a very small screen. It is simply unfair for them to have to navigate through quoted text and often even images that they've just read in the previous post(s).

It's also an extra burden on us mods to have to spend our precious volunteer time having to manually "trim the fat" off of so many over quoted replies.

It is only necessary to quote one or two sentences to make it clear to whom the reply is pointed. Often times even that isn't truly necessary.

[snglecoil 1,828]

16 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Let me ask another way then. Worthless, compared to what?

Ok, they aren't completely worthless...only mostly worthless. For VFR, they are fine. For IFR, all of the pretty glass panel stuff provides no significant capability beyond what a basic NAV/COM radio would get you. What is there related to RNAV capability is so poorly implemented than in most cases IFR RNAV procedures don't work at all, or only work if you follow a very narrow script and never deviate from that script. I personally think it is only a matter of time that this all gets fixed, but for now it is worthless for a very large segment use cases.

[Der Zeitgeist 1,575]

2 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Ok, they aren't completely worthless...only mostly worthless. For VFR, they are fine. For IFR, all of the pretty glass panel stuff provides no significant capability beyond what a basic NAV/COM radio would get you. What is there related to RNAV capability is so poorly implemented than in most cases IFR RNAV procedures don't work at all, or only work if you follow a very narrow script and never deviate from that script. I personally think it is only a matter of time that this all gets fixed, but for now it is worthless for a very large segment use cases.

Fair enough. Still, I found that out of the box, we never had so much IFR capabilities in the default airplanes in any previous sim. I can't remember ever having the ATC in FSX or P3D assign me a complete instrument approach, that I'm then able to fly on autopilot, only having to select altitudes (because VNAV doesn't work, yet) and set my throttle. 

[Paraffin 2,197]

50 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Let me ask another way then. Worthless, compared to what?

Compared to the out of the box avionics in X-Plane 11, which was released four years ago.

This isn't a question of "accretion" over the years with 3rd party add-ons. You get a set of working GPS units that are very close to the real thing in the default installation, and there are no issues with any of the other flight instruments in the default aircraft. 

This is not an unreasonable comparison, and I think it's the basis of the article author's "step backwards" comment since he uses flight sims for IFR and procedure training. You can't do that with buggy and incomplete avionics. 

[snglecoil 1,828]

8 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Compared to the out of the box avionics in X-Plane 11, which was released four years ago.

Well, let's not forget that the GNS/G1000 functionality of X-plane didn't exists on day 1 either. But yes, what is default in X-plane today is "the bar" that I lot of us were hoping MSFS would be able to clear.

Go back and watch the MSFS discovery video for IFR. I know they didn't go into specific detail to the depth of modeling of all those Garmin avionics...but what was inferred in that video is a far cry from what we saw upon release. Again, I certainly hope that the capability is improved over the next several updates. I firmly believe that if they can cover even just basic generic operations that are typical of IFR GPS units today, the default planes can be more than acceptable for a large population of simmers.

[Paraffin 2,197]

3 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Well, let's not forget that the GNS/G1000 functionality of X-plane didn't exists on day 1 either

You're right, I stand corrected on that one. I forgot it came in around halfway through the product cycle. Only the GNS 430 and 530 were in the initial release. 

[jmig 100]

I think that some of you are missing the big picture with his review. I do not think he is whining or being overly negative. In my opinion all of hits nits are accurate and factual. The fact that he worked on the original Microsoft versions of Flight Simulation is not germane, other than allowing him to have an inside perspective of flight simulation software and its development.

Yes, FSX was no different out of the box than MSFS2020 is. It was a pretty full of eye candy game and not much else. It was the third party developers, both freeware and payware that made it and its brother P3D the “sims” they are today.

That being said, I think it is fair to expect more from this new “sim” than just more eye candy. After all, it has been twenty years. Surly software development and especially game software development have progressed to the point where we can get more advanced software for our money.

I just purchased a new Sony 4k TV to watch the fall football games (go figure 😊). I expected it to be more than a prettier image. I expected its “Smart” features to be smarter than my 15 year old Sony. I believe I got more than just a nicer picture. The new TV is easier to use. It automatically detected my WiFi and quickly found all the things it was supposed to find and do.

MSFS does have “smarter” features. The new weather is fantastic. The marshalling and ground services are way beyond FSX/P3D.  Unfortunately, that and the pretty scenery is all that is different. The UI is not setup for serious flight simmers. The avionics, according to what I have read by others, leave much to be desired. I have never flown glass cockpits in real life, so I don’t know if the issues I am having are because of poorly programmed avionics or self-inflected by this old steam gauge pilot. I do find the autopilots, trim, and controller setup frustrating, however.

Lastly, I would like to state my opinion of flight models and realism. I have over 3000 flight hours in both military and GA aircraft. It is my opinion that the only tests that can be done on flight models and realism are; one, does it fly the numbers. The second thing you can do is subjective. Does it seem to maneuver like the real airplane. Is the roll rate and pitch rate like what the behavior of the real aircraft? That is it.

Non real world pilots cannot understand just how important seat of the pants flying is to a real world pilot. In the USAF we did 2G overhead breaks to the downwind. I never had to look at the G-meter to see if I was pulling 2 Gs. I could tell by feel. The same for 6-7 G BCM. You knew by the pressure on you, the vibration of the airframe, and reactions of the airplane to control movements. This same intuitive knowledge is part of GA or Airliner flying. None of these are possible in simulation flying. I don’t care if you have a $30 joystick or $1000 professional control setup.

So, if the default aircraft seem to fly like you would think a real world airplane of the same make and model fly, and it more or less hits the climb, speed, etc. numbers, be happy it is a good model.

I apologize if this came off as didactic or pedantic in tone. I usually keep my thoughts to myself. However, I just thought some of you were being a bit unfair to BruceAir.  

MSFS will be a great addition to the sim flying world, once shortcomings and defects are corrected, either my MS or others. I for one am looking forward to seeing this new “game” mature into a “sim.”

Edited August 27, 2020 by jmig
Changed one word for clairity.

[bean_sprout 1,201]

2 hours ago, jmig said:

I apologize if this came off as didactic or pedantic in tone. I usually keep my thoughts to myself. However, I just thought some of you were being a bit unfair to BruceAir.  

Everyone has opinions except this one came across as semi-official which could incite a few hard simmers.  Here again we need to sharpen our Troll Detection skills.  

Cheers

bs

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

On 8/26/2020 at 4:36 AM, Nyxx said:

For once we agree 🙂 

You cannot blame the old geezers in here for being a bit jealous of the younger guys, but don't worry, those younger ones will have their "now I'm old darnit" day too 🙂