Not rushed release and aircraft are intentionally like this?

[sanh 823]

Based on many of the interviews with MS Devs (particularly the recent pilots podcast where they say they don't want to do too much and put 3PD out of business) here is my view on this.

I think the planes are intentionally in this state. I don't mean bugs. I mean missing features and inop buttons. I think MS are worried about killing the 3PD market if they do too much. They have said this themselves in interviews. If the A320 has more functionality how many sales would FSLabs and Aerosoft lose with their buses? There are a lot of default aircraft in the sim and if they are all to a higher standard the community demands, how many would be queueing up for 3PD aircraft?

I think 3PDs have expressed concern about what msfs are including for free. Look how many use the free Zibo 737 in x-plane. That's pretty much the dominant plane on x-plane. The 737 payware market is down the tubes.

Onto scenery. If they fix up London it would put one of Orbx release day products out of business. Fixing scenery problems manually is risky for MS because Bing gets new satellite imagery all the time and manual fixes need to be reworked. What if they fix something a 3PD has spent 8 months and $$$ on, which they plan to bring to market in the coming months?

So taking into account roughly 75% of the complaints are about the above topics - I don't think this was rushed out. I think we are just at the point where MS ends and third party development begins.

Edited September 12, 2020 by sanh

[omarsmak30 4,068]

Jörg Neumman already said in an interview that, study level aircraft will be the job for the third party developers and main focus of Asobo and Microsoft is building the platform which makes sense. 

[Reader 2,026]

A further factor is that every user needs a simulator but "study level" aircraft are appealing only to a certain proportion of those users, thus a niche within a niche.

Add to that the fact that this simulator is ideally suited to low level VFR flight, the remarkable detail is arguably wasted at 37,000 virtual feet and the fact that there are already eight worldwide simulator versions that can support those study level aircraft, it could be seen as an unattractive path to go down.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Reader

[CJ1045 469]

I do think that the Airliners will be fixed to the point that where systems operate they operate correctly. It seems to me that most of the issues with the airliners is that the funtional bits don't work correctly. I think that Asobo will improve the airliners to the level they currently are at with the 152 realism which most seem to think is pretty good.

CJ

Edited September 12, 2020 by CJ1045

[Ricardo41 5,954]

NO MS flight simulator release has ever contained "study level" aircraft. This is so because the armchair aviators here at avsim are a minority of the flight sim market, and 99% of that market doesn't care a flying iguana about how many switches and knobs you can twist. 

And I'm perfectly fine with that, because if you want to press buttons and turn knobs til the cows come home, there are plenty of addon companies happy to relieve you of your dineros. 

[pstrub 998]

I see the point you're making, and I have to admit, I've been asking myself the same. I've also seen the interviews where they state they don't want to get 3pd out of business by making study-level aircraft... However, they also said they wanted to deliver a flying experience that's satisfactory even to advanced users. I do see some indications that they're still planning to improve the most important points though.

I've been mostly flying GA aircraft in MSFS, and I have to admit, I certainly haven't tried all of them. So I won't be speaking of airliners. After what I've read in the first days, I decided to give them some time to "mature" before I bother flying them.

Some GA aircraft seem much more complete than others - they have very detailed checklists (such as the TBM 930 and the C172, both steam gauge and G1000), and most systems/buttons work as they should (some bugs notwithstanding), other aircraft come with rudimentary checklists and systems at best. My feeling is that the TBM 930 and C172 represent the level of simulation they're aiming for, which isn't bad at all, given that some issues still get fixed.

As far as I can see, the most criticism is concentrated on a few points, most of them acknowledged as bugs already:

- autopilot (will be fixed soon)

- performance / aerodynamics in some aircraft (i.e. over- or underpowered engine, not slowing down, flaps have too much resistance, etc)

- Garmin systems (acknowledged as an issue, at least to a certain point)

- engine modelling (issues with leaning, turboprop model completely wrong)

- prop feather

From what I've seen, they do seem to care about addressing these points. The ones I doubt most to be fixed are the turboprop engine, as it has been like this forever in earlier versions of MSFS, and prop feather. Correct aircraft performance is important to them, they've stressed it several times, so I guess a GA plane that misses its advertised cruise speed by 20-30 knots is going to be fixed. Garmin avionics / navigation systems are a necessity in modern IFR flying, and they can be re-used by 3rd party developers, so it makes sense to improve them too.

For the default aircraft, I don't mind a couple of inoperable buttons or the details of the electrical wiring, as long as the systems relevant for following flight procedures work as they should. And I see them getting there without hurting 3rd party developers. At the level of a bug-fixed TBM 930 or C172, I'd be happy to spend time in default aircraft. And I'd be happy to spend money on a couple of highly-detailed study level aircraft from reputable publishers. 

Concerning the scenery, I see the conflicting interests. MS made it abundantly clear they're planning world updates, and I'm sure there's going to be photogrammetry data for London sooner rather than later, and for many more cities to come. They may leave the landmarks to the 3rd party devs, and I reckon they leave the airports to the 3pd too. 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by pstrub

[Farlis 2,287]

28 minutes ago, pstrub said:

For the default aircraft, I don't mind a couple of inoperable buttons or the details of the electrical wiring, as long as the systems relevant for following flight procedures work as they should.

I'm totally with you on that. I don't expect a default aircraft to have all the systems modeled to a tee, especially not the airliners. But even in a default aircraft engine behaviour, flight characteristics and autopilot behaviour should be similar to the real world aircraft, not just an approximation.

A rudimentary FMS and MCDU is fine, as long as the aircraft flies correctly according to its performance tables and knows how to calculate TOC and TOD correctly.

 

[pstrub 998]

32 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I'm totally with you on that. I don't expect a default aircraft to have all the systems modeled to a tee, especially not the airliners. But even in a default aircraft engine behaviour, flight characteristics and autopilot behaviour should be similar to the real world aircraft, not just an approximation.

Yes, it shoud be reasonably close. It seems ok to me if some climb speeds are off by a few knots, but you should be able to fly it the same as a real aircraft. If the real thing slows down at a certain descent rate and engine setting, the simulated plane should do the same, and it definitely shouldn't accelerate. If you can get a steady climb with a given flap setting in the real world, that should work in MSFS too.

 

32 minutes ago, Farlis said:

A rudimentary FMS and MCDU is fine, as long as the aircraft flies correctly according to its performance tables and knows how to calculate TOC and TOD correctly.

 

I can only speak for the GA aircraft here. They decided to equip most aircraft with glass cockpits, and while I like flying the steam gauge aircraft in MSFS like the C172, I think it's a reasonable thing to do. That's how new aircraft are built, that's how many pilots fly IFR nowadays. But that's also why it's essential to make the simulated G1000/3000/530 etc systems work just as their real-world counterparts. 

Edit: What I'd really like to see is a way to stop the shaking when turning the knobs on the Garmin instruments. It's convenient to use the mouse wheel for that, but when I do so I end up zooming in or out all the time. Would be nice to stabilise it when inside one of the ctrl-1 ctrl-2 etc instrument panel views... 

Edited September 12, 2020 by pstrub

[Farlis 2,287]

13 minutes ago, pstrub said:

, but when I do so I end up zooming in or out all the time.

Same. They should unmap the zoom function from the mousewheel and put it back to were it was  on the keyboard in FSX and P3D.

Or have it only active on the mouse if you clicked the middle mousebutton and put yourself in the free camera movement.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Farlis

[pstrub 998]

Just now, Farlis said:

Same. They should unmap the zoom function from the mousewheel and put it back to were it was  on the keyboard in FSX and P3D.

This, or at least give the user control over the configuration. Or use Ctrl-wheel for zooming, like many other applications do.

[flightsim1818 79]

Well, I don't know if it was intentional or not but I can tell you one thing....the first developer releasing a 3rd party fully functional airliner (like A320 or B737) without bugs and the right flight model will make a huge fortune. I believe EVERY serious FS2020 airliner simmer will throw their money at it in a heartbeat.

 

[CJ1045 469]

It will be interesting to see what the patch next week brings for the airliners. If I was a developer I would chat with Asobo to see what there interntions are with respect to the default ones. If Asobo are going to get serious about them then I would focus on other Airliners e.g. 737.

CJ

[RALF9636 1,966]

50 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Same. They should unmap the zoom function from the mousewheel and put it back to were it was  on the keyboard in FSX and P3D.

Or have it only active on the mouse if you clicked the middle mousebutton and put yourself in the free camera movement.

 

48 minutes ago, pstrub said:

This, or at least give the user control over the configuration. Or use Ctrl-wheel for zooming, like many other applications do.

You can easily change these assignments yourself in the Controls menu.

Removing the in-cockpit zoom function from the mouse wheel was the first thing I did in MSFS.

[pstrub 998]

1 minute ago, RALF9636 said:

 

You can easily change these assignments yourself in the Controls menu.

Removing the in-cockpit zoom function from the mouse wheel was the first thing I did in MSFS.

Just 10 minutes ago I played around with this, my perfect solution would've been to allow mouse wheel zoom when pressing ctrl or when keeping the right mouse button pressed. First one can't be assigned, the second one can... For a split second I was pleased to avoid zooming while using the wheel to turn the knobs. Then I noticed that this somehow blocks the function to move the view direction holding the right button while moving the mouse. So still experimenting to find the perfect solution. 

[Carts85 1,203]

It’s also financially motivated. A study level aircraft from PMDG/FSlabs etc brings in revenue for Microsoft as they they take a cut of the marketplace profit sales without a doubt. I don’t believe they’ve left the default aircraft in this state out of love for the 3PDs.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Carts85