Impressions from a long time MSFS(Aces) developer

[cepact 506]

https://bruceair.wordpress.com/2020/08/21/flight-simulator-2020-first-impressions/

[MarioDonick 751]

Hm, the following quote:

Quote

For example, the G1000 in some panels is really just an electronic depiction of a primary flight display and a moving map. You can’t build a flight plan, load instrument procedures, or otherwise use it like its real-world counterpart.

Hm, he surely remembers that in FSX we were also not able to "build a flight plan, load instrument procedures, or otherwise use it like its real-world counterpart"  in FSX' default G1000?

[Steve_Ellis 273]

A very interesting read and to be honest, I cannot diasgree with any of the comments.

[LHookins 3,076]

I agree mostly with what he's written.  His statements on the hardware required may be a little misleading, as people are running on much lower specs and enjoying it.  His complaint seems to be that his system didn't get the maximum setting as default.  Mine didn't either, but that didn't stop me from setting it to maximum. 🙂 

I find the additional detail in the scenery to be much more than just eye candy, as I navigate with skyvector.com real world charts, a compass, a clock, and what I can see out the window.  It's nice to finally have scenery that is not only accurate but attractive, as to me it's not just scenery, it's how I navigate.

Hook

[DavidP 1,340]

17 minutes ago, MarioDonick said:

Hm, the following quote:

Hm, he surely remembers that in FSX we were also not able to "build a flight plan, load instrument procedures, or otherwise use it like its real-world counterpart"  in FSX' default G1000?

As people frequently point out, FSX is 15 year old technology. It should be possible to do better these days, no?

[LHookins 3,076]

7 minutes ago, DavidP said:

As people frequently point out, FSX is 15 year old technology. It should be possible to do better these days, no?

Absolutely, if they'd started developing MSFS 15 years ago. 😄 

Hook

[qnh 70]

I must admit I tend to agree with most of what he said. This product has been rushed to market, it is effectively still a beta; thankfully I used a Microsoft Gamepass to test it out before buying. I'm going to put it back on the shelf and wait 12 months before having another look to see if it has matured.

 

[ErichB 3,542]

Maybe Bruce needs to be reminded just how crass FSX was when it was first released - not to mention the awful performance.  Desert landscapes as far as the eye could see - absolutely everywhere.  There was absolutely nothing to like about default FSX.  Nothing at all.  Don't even get me started on flight models of FSX default aircraft.    I think time has conveniently erased that from his memory.  Only two years after initial release did people start saying, 'oh okay, this isn't bad'.  Aces only released 2 small patches for FSX and that was the extent of the FSX support and development.  It was ridiculous.  Orbx single-handedly saved FSX by transforming it into something people actually wanted to use.  I'm not a huge John Venema fan, but the success of FSX and its longevity, can largely be attributed to him.   Third parties (out of extreme necessity) made FSX what it was.  And not because it was that amazing to work with either.  Much of the FSX development was  based on complex workarounds because of the shortcomings of the SDK - many of which have only recently been addressed by Lockheed Martin's P3D team.

People are being very short sighted with their commentary.    Especially people who should know better.  Many commentators are giving their 'nit-picky' view of individual aspects from 500ft . That's easy to do.  Any kid with an Xbox controller can nitpick.  People who know better should provide more insightful commentary about MFS as a platform and its potential (or lack of potential) -  from 30,000ft - and substantiate their commentary.  Otherwise, their Youtube ramblings are worthless.

Of course, what most users (especially new users) are looking for is validation from IRL pilots and developers.  We all want the comfort of our new sim being validated.  But real pilots and  developers will also only provide a subjective view.  Those views can differ considerably between a pilot using a crappy, poorly calibrated controller, sub-par hardware and a stuttery internet connection and another using a $600 yoke, a $300 throttle unit and a 55' 4K screen with a good internet connection.   I know which scenario will deliver a better overall perspective.

We are one week into release,  and already I am amazed at what people are doing with it and the extent of third party releases. It is unprecedented in our flightsim history.   Of course there are issues.  But it's only a week old and they will be resolved.

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

Edited August 26, 2020 by ErichB

[mazex 419]

Well - I am a software developer that is starting to get old. I have been responsible for the development of some pretty successful complex software systems over the years and I really hope that I don't end up a bitter old man some day, sneering at things people do better today than I did 20 years ago.

[wim123 757]

interesting, but  i dont agree at all, when he says ppl will return to their old sims..hahaah no way.

this is the perfect low slow  flightsim.

yes the tubeliners, i understand why they are not happy, lets hope they fix the issues there quickly.

its all a very personal subjective point of view, as is mine too. (at least i admit it).

it is prematurely released, lets see when the updates are coming on.

[Slides 1,552]

A lot of what he stated reminds me of the old man yelling at clouds meme. However, I'm really interested in his comments about the flight model from the perspective of both a RW pilot and former flight sim developer. Good to know his first impression is positive. 

[ErichB 3,542]

Just now, wim123 said:

 

yes the tubeliners, i understand why they are not happy, lets hope they fix the issues there quickly.

 

With opensource development possible, those default airliners will be fixed by the community in short order.  Like another thread has indicated, it's Zibo style modding of the A320N.  

[spacedyemeerkat 421]

He actually starts with being impressed by the graphical representation of the world and aircraft, and finishes by stating that the flight model, so far as he has relevant experience, appears to "hold-up".

It's the whining in the middle, some of which is down to personal preference, that lets him down and colours the feel of the entire piece of writing despite those two positives.

Edited August 26, 2020 by spacedyemeerkat

[MarioDonick 751]

25 minutes ago, DavidP said:

It should be possible to do better these days, no?

Yes, you are right. But the default state of MFS is better in many regards than default FSX. To give just three examples (since the following are most important for me):

- Can I do VFR in FSX? Only with expensive addons - in MFS, I can do it out of the box in most areas of the world.

- Does the G1000 work in FSX? Only as PFD and moving map - in MFS we CAN create flight plans and select procedures in the G1000 (yes, it has still bugs, but there is not yet reason to believe that these can't or won't be fixed).

- Does FSX come with updated nav data? No, I need to buy addon; in MFS it's included. And I can use them just fine at least in the smaller aircraft.

 

Also, was FSX a serious simulator usable for training anything, or more like some infotainment software? In its default state, the latter.

Things like the gamey user interface are really secondary (I would have preferred a more traditional Windows-like approach with a menu bar and dialogue windows, too, and the ability to change aircraft inflight, instead of going back to the world map, but it's still not a "game breaker").

 

All in all, default MFS is certainly not perfect, there are bugs, some of them really bad (live weather not loading consistently, airliner autopilot really bad), but all in all it is still better than default FSX and default P3D. And I say this despite me being mostly "an X-Plane guy".

 

But note: I compare default to default. I do not expect that default includes more than default has always included (although I mentioned three things which ARE more than in previous sims).

Of course if you have a fully customized FSX/P3D or XP setup, it is way too early to change to MFS, unless you are doing mostly VFR in one of the areas which have good Bing coverage.

 

I am more afraid of Microsoft pulling the plug way earlier than the promised 10 years, for example if sales (incl. to the gamer crowd) tend to be much less than expected ... 

 

 

[tonywob 4,473]

I have both of his books which I bought back in the day, and they made for good reads and also to follow along. I agree on some points, but I don't see how this was any different when FSX came out which lacked even more than MFS. I remember from his book that it has some VFR flights that were incredibly difficult to do on FSX