I can appreciate him saying that the documentation is a step back and the loading screens are definitely atrocious. The full screen menus are a tad obnoxious for sure but I don’t think that’s because it has console gamers in mind. I think they wanted to show off their globe with the awesome filters offering real time information about clouds, precipitation etc. 

I think The aeroplane selection screen is very “gamery”, in that it offers very minimal performance characteristics and colours them red and green if they’re better or worse than the currently selected option. That is a peculiar decision to make. Like it’s a game of top trumps or something. 

Otherwise it seems most of the inclusions don’t exhibit the “default” standard of other sims. With the small amount of time I’ve spent in xplane I definitely prefer their menu system but I don’t think it’s because ms were targeting gamers. They’re just showing off the eye-candy. This isn’t something gamers somehow prefer, gamers still enjoy 8bit graphics for goodness sake. Very peculiar statement to make.

as a gamer, I still prefer the menu system in unreal goty- which is essentially a Windows 95 menu system with a bunch of headings at the top of the screen that a mouse click reveals subheadings lol. Games have every kind of menu system you could think of and everyone has their preference, I think if any menu system could be attributed to console games it would be the list based menus. The menu that is literally a list in the middle of the screen with “new game”, “load”, “options” and “Exit”. 
 

with that in mind, I can’t help getting the impression of a comical, stereotypical “old man” deriding “kids and their new shiny toys”.

5 minutes ago, MarioDonick said:

But the default state of MFS is better in many regards than default FSX

You would expect it to be given the age of FSX

6 minutes ago, MarioDonick said:

Does the G1000 work in FSX? Only as PFD and moving map

You would expect that's all it could do, it was so long ago

6 minutes ago, MarioDonick said:

Does FSX come with updated nav data? No, I need to buy addon; in MFS it's included.

I should hope nav data is included in a modern sim. Back in the day no one probably considered simmers needed updated data.

You misunderstood my point - to compare the default capabilities of FSX and MFS is like comparing apples and oranges. 15 years ago we would never have dreamed of how a sim could evolve from everything like the coding to the hardware we run it on. When I first simmed it was wire framed graphics at about 2 fps on a 386 processor.

You cannot fairly compare the two.

4 minutes ago, DavidP said:

You misunderstood my point - to compare the default capabilities of FSX and MFS is like comparing apples and oranges. 15 years ago we would never have dreamed of how a sim could evolve from everything like the coding to the hardware we run it on. When I first simmed it was wire framed graphics at about 2 fps on a 386 processor.

You cannot fairly compare the two.

Yeah, and that's exactly what the blog post linked in this thread's initial post is doing. As far as I understand his post, he compares default FSX and default MFS (and not even correctly in regards of the G1000), and invokes the impression as if FSX was way better than MFS is today. This is what I was about.

(For a more recent sim, I could have also compared MFS with my (usually favorite sim) XP11, but that's too off-topic. Unfortunately, MFS would still win in some regards.)

I can only agree with the lack of documentation, the Learning Centre was a great resource and it's a shame that something similar does not exist. The UI I guess comes down to personal preference, I think it's fine for the most part though it could use some improvements. But overall, he seems to be comparing default Microsoft Flight Simulator against older simulators filled with add-ons that transform even the basic workings of the simulator, not just the content.

Quote

Flight Simulator 2020 is movie sequel with spectacular special effects, but without the plot or characters that made its predecessors so engaging.

Nope, default Flight Simulator X, Prepar3D and X-Plane are a lot less engaging actually. A comparison will be valid when we have add-ons that push the limits of the flight model and system complexity, or even completely replace them which is usually the case with today's add-ons.

sour grapes....

Everything should work out of the box? Impossible for such a large project,
you can't satisfy all of them, but many of them have a lot of fun with the new MSFS.
I'm glad that the MSFS started in august and most people didn't have to wait even more months for just this or that button to work.

The development is going on, you can ride the train for the next years or not.

We "experienced Flight Instructors & flight simmers" must be living in our own bubble, because I found the blog article SPOT ON!

Interesting. He certainly doesn't remember which state his FSX was in when it was brought to market.

But I do.

So let's move on.

8 hours ago, ErichB said:

Maybe Bruce needs to be reminded just how crass FSX was when it was first released -

<snipped for brevity>

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

Very well said Erich, I felt a touch of the green eye in the OP's diatribe!

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!

1 minute ago, DJJose said:

We "experienced Flight Instructors & flight simmers" must be living in our own bubble, because I found the blog article SPOT ON!

Every single statement in the blog post is something that most people have figured out on their own. Of course, you can continue to belabor the obvious, or you can start contributing to the community, instead of sitting in a corner, crying and banging your toy drum in frustration like a toddler.

2 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Every single statement in the blog post is something that most people have figured out on their own. Of course, you can continue to belabor the obvious, or you can start contributing to the community, instead of sitting in a corner, crying and banging your toy drum in frustration like a toddler.

There was plenty of beef in that burger. Unfortunately, some have lost their sense of taste.

2 minutes ago, DJJose said:

There was plenty of beef in that burger. Unfortunately, some have lost their sense of taste.

I didn't see any beef, I saw a lot of Spam.

As i've already stated on this forum, I highly respect and value the opinion of others. Even more so for guys that have been at the coalface for so long such as this one. But I cannot read any further than his first summary.

Quote

"Like every version of Microsoft Flight Simulator, FS2020 requires a state-of-the-art computer to run satisfactorily."

If a blatant untruth is all you can muster to kick off your article, I cannot read on.

47 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

sour grapes....

For once we agree 🙂 

Ok, let's look at these "beefy statements" in detail:

"FS2020 requires a state of the art computer"
Every release of FS required a state of the art computer. Nothing new here.

"no documentation"
A keyboard reference sheet was available within days. The rest can be figured out quickly by perusing the relevant fora.

"Navigation optimized for XBox controllers"
No idea what that means. I found navigation within the menus to be intuitive and easy. Yes, there is a learning curve.

"Cockpits and instruments aren't like the real thing"
Well, duh, what else is new?

"FS2020 is a step backwards as a real world trainer"
It's not designed as a real world trainer

He seems to be ok with the flight dynamics

The rest is hot air: "In fact, in many respects, it’s a step backward for virtual aviators and real-world pilots who want to experience aviation when they can’t take to the skies in a real aircraft."

I'm a "virtual aviator" and feel that MSFS 2020 provides the most immersive experience I have ever seen in a sim.