September 17th, 2020 - Development Update

[brucets 94]

13 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

If you read his post, he is saying that he is perfectly happy with FSX. A lot of people will say that this is very shortsighted, but in the final context, there is nothing wrong with that attitude.

I guess his final statement:

 

13 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

has to fall into much the same category, I only wonder how he is going to know if he does not try it. He really does only have the community opinion to go by. My preferred method is the "suck it and see" one, but that can prove to be expensive.

In the end, if he is happy, then he is entitled to say so, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

There is no 737-800/900. The 747 & 787 are really just for long haul and I don't fly long trips anymore. The A320 is good looking, but seriously broken, and what I have read is -- it won't track a flight plan in a GPS like in FSX. Also ATC is pretty bad in 2020. In FSX I always fly in fair, default weather and usually file a VFR plan to start. That way, with the auto pilot on, I don't have sit in front of the PC the whole flight. When I get about 175mi from my destination I re-file IFR and let ATC get me to the Localizer. When I can do that with a simplified B737, A320, CRJ700, B757, just as I do in FSX, then I will buy MSFS2020 and a whole bunch of add-on airports and scenery!!!

Bruce

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Bruce,

None of what you have said is incorrect, nor is your attitude to FSX. Personally, this is not and would not be satisfying for me, but, my reasons for simming are just as defensible as yours are. 

This is precisely why there are gamers, simmers and players in our very diverse world of simming.

To be very honest, ATC in FSX is pretty bad too, and in fact, default ATC in every sim is pretty bad. I generally do not use it other than to get permission to take off and land with it turned off during the flight.  Generally all you are doing with it on during the flight is changing frequencies and reporting in.  In real life, of course, this is very necessary, but it is definitely an option for simming. Another aspect to consider, is that Pilot2ATC, as an add-on, is already available for MSFS2020 and other platforms. I am aware that this probably is not going to be an option for you, but it is worth mentioning.

I genuinely hope that these default aircraft get their fixes in due time, however, as soon as 3PDs start to introduce their aircraft, I will be among the first to abandon the default aircraft.  Some of them, as default aircraft, are very, very good however, particularly in comparison to default aircraft in ALL the other sims.

Another bonus is the default scenery, and the clouds ... what can I say that has not already been said.  Just supurb and unprecedented as a base simulator.

Finally, I do recommend and encourage you try it (even the xbox version for a month) just to see what you may, and I stress, may, be missing. 

Regards

Tony

 

[ashepherd316 63]

On 9/18/2020 at 1:21 AM, kingm56 said:

I'd rather have a 'broken' inclusive simulator than a blank canvas (e.g. P3D) that requires thousands of dollars of additional add-ons to achieve a realistic flight environment.  It amazes me how some have taken MSFS value proposition for granted.  Moreover, given professionalism and transparency of the team, coupled with the frequency of patches, does anyone believe these bugs won't be fixed?  I believe we're about 6-months away from a complete simulator....

Thank you for the update, sir.  

even with addons for p3d it still doesn't look as good as the stock msfs

[brucets 94]

Thanks for the encouragement, Tony! I'll probably jump in sometime next year after it's been polished up more. I'm a simple simmer and my technical abilities are also simple! I don't want to do the tweaking exercises anymore, like we did with FSX. So when you smart guys tell me this game is 98% finished and ready for prime time, I'll be listening! 😉

Bruce

[pmanhart 176]

44 minutes ago, brucets said:

Thanks for the encouragement, Tony! I'll probably jump in sometime next year after it's been polished up more. I'm a simple simmer and my technical abilities are also simple! I don't want to do the tweaking exercises anymore, like we did with FSX. So when you smart guys tell me this game is 98% finished and ready for prime time, I'll be listening! 😉

Bruce

 

It'll be exactly 6 months according to all of the seers here. Been meaning to ask all of the members of the 6-month club to send me tomorrow's winning lottery numbers, but haven't gotten around to it.

[pmanhart 176]

On 9/17/2020 at 5:57 PM, Boomer said:

LMAO...havent been around software nor flight simming much have you?

 

Just since FS4, so a few versions of FS, as well as Flight Unlimited and the other wannabes from the mid 90's... Don't remember a flagship FS release where an aircraft was completely unusable, let alone where a release was $120 and included unusable aircraft.

The really unfortunate part of all of this, is that the apologists and self-flagellating fan b o y s will only ensure that MSFS 2020 will never be "finished," whatever that means. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by pmanhart

[Saucey12 38]

geez. with all these criticisms I think I will just wait for awhile before I purchase this and begin to fly. Give it time and they will adjust it all.  That or 3rd party developers will.  I honestly think FSX and a weather addon like ActiveSky does a pretty darn good job for local weather and enroute winds aloft, given what it is and how old it is..  

[Saucey12 38]

I think we are all just a bit picky because we are so used to 15 years worth of tweaks and fixes.. Understandably so.. They have put so much effort into this new platform with the aircraft exterior details and the Bing map scenery that many of the other details we have come to know and love are not there yet, but I have confidence that all of that will come with time. 

[TASCHMANN 200]

We've been getting  "weekly updates" from these people for well over a year.  Usually they do little more than tell us--in marketing jargon-- when we can expect further updates.

In none of them was an honest description of the current state of this sim even hinted at--nor that it would be six to twelve months after release before we could expect a  fully working simulation.   That might have been useful information.

I know that there are many who think it naive and even nonsensical to expect value for money.  They seem to be quite content and even grateful for what ever is available regardless of quality.  But some of us believe that there is something fundamentally dishonest about the way this product has been promoted and continues to be promoted on a weekly basis.

How about this for a suggestion:

No more updates --just fix the sim.  And then--and only then--publish an update that lets us know that.

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by TASCHMANN

[danhenri 24]

Agree with you at 99% "Taschmann". But we need an update ASAP to fix the bugs of the previous one !

[stefbuik 7]

Well, as an avid gamer I can offer some solace ( as in ‘shared suffering.. 😛 )  

EVERY game published in the last, say, 8 years, has been a bug-fest at release. And subsequent patches have ALWAYS broken, formerly fine working, functions. Usually, after -indeed- a month of 4 to 6, we get a grown-up game.
 

We accepted that from the beginning somehow. And publishers’ beancounters went “hey.. they accept buggy/unplayable at release! YAY! We can kick-out those testers and QC people. Instant moolah!!.” 
 

The ónly game that I remember that got áctually retracted from the market place to properly fix, was Batman Arkham Asylum. But that’s the outlier.

Do I like it? No. But ‘The Market’ ( Thy Name be Praised)  has decided that messy, buggy releases will stIll sell like hot-cakes. That’s just how commerce works. If people happily buy first-release malfunctioning products, then why wait for that first stream of nice moolah by thoroughly testing for half a year? No! “Just publish” The beancounters and CEO’s go. Rake-in the money and wait for the buyers to grow a bit too loud for comfort, to fix it.. or just dón’t fix it.. 

 

*sigh* sadly it’s just how it is. The hard-nosed side of business that wants to spend the least amount they can get away with it so as to guarantee CEO’s and stockholders the most revenue...

[PhysicsTeacher 2]

I'm happy with the progress of update 2 - even though some things got broken in the process.  3PDs are going to be the real backbone of a solid, realistic simulator.  3PDs, however, could never amass the resources of Microsoft and Asobo and others, but Microsoft and Asobo and others could never amass the hands-on experience of the flying public.  It's a team effort.
To wit: I am learning to fly the CJ4 using cwburnett's engine mods (Updated CJ4 Performance - Updated engines.cfg in the forums).  After his mods I am able to hand-fly ILS approaches, stop in 3000 ft, and generally never use the AP.  I had already disabled the reverse thrust after some reading.  They disabled the standard plane reverse thrust in update 2.  The distribution setup was flawed for sure, but the zillions of dollars spent on the simulator framework development would have been well out of reach for an individual.
Before I started teaching, I built robots.  We defined software as: A set of coded instructions for a computer that is 95% complete at all times!

Hang in there everybody!

[shadow133 23]

2 hours ago, PhysicsTeacher said:

I'm happy with the progress of update 2 - even though some things got broken in the process.  3PDs are going to be the real backbone of a solid, realistic simulator.  3PDs, however, could never amass the resources of Microsoft and Asobo and others, but Microsoft and Asobo and others could never amass the hands-on experience of the flying public.  It's a team effort.
To wit: I am learning to fly the CJ4 using cwburnett's engine mods (Updated CJ4 Performance - Updated engines.cfg in the forums).  After his mods I am able to hand-fly ILS approaches, stop in 3000 ft, and generally never use the AP.  I had already disabled the reverse thrust after some reading.  They disabled the standard plane reverse thrust in update 2.  The distribution setup was flawed for sure, but the zillions of dollars spent on the simulator framework development would have been well out of reach for an individual.
Before I started teaching, I built robots.  We defined software as: A set of coded instructions for a computer that is 95% complete at all times!

Hang in there everybody!

Funny, I fly the cj4 and after the update my rev thrust still works but now the autopilot doesn’t (immediately chases autiltude from selector bug even when alt capped) and the avionics will turn off mid flight. I already had my “premium deluxe” refunded and now I canceled my gamepass renew. It is unplayable. Flying a fictional and buggy citation that needs mods to resemble an aircraft is unacceptable and the word “simulator” should be removed from the title.

[Paraffin 2,197]

4 hours ago, stefbuik said:

Well, as an avid gamer I can offer some solace ( as in ‘shared suffering.. 😛 )  

EVERY game published in the last, say, 8 years, has been a bug-fest at release. And subsequent patches have ALWAYS broken, formerly fine working, functions. Usually, after -indeed- a month of 4 to 6, we get a grown-up game.

I'm another avid gamer as well as flight sim fanatic, and that hasn't been my experience. Sure, some games I've bought in the last 8 years have been bug farms on release, but the central question is always "can you play it and enjoy it anyway?" In other words, are the bugs crippling, or just an annoyance that gradually goes away with patches.

Many of the games I've played recently were fine on release with just minor bugs -- Disco Elysium, AoW Planetfall, the XCOM reboots, the TW Warhammer series, many others. Then there's something like Wasteland 3, which I really should have waited and read more user reports, because there's a crippling bug that's blocking any progress halfway through the game.

The problem with a flight simulator is that we don't all fly it the same way. It's not like a strategy or first person shooter game where everyone does play it the same way. Some flight simmers just want to fly around gawking at the scenery, others want full IFR simulation. Light GA vs. airliners is another big dividing line. 

Leaving aside critical issues like the game not launching at all, or CTD's in flight, we're going to have different views on whether MSFS is completely broken, or flyable and fun while it's being patched up.

Personally, I don't have all my flight sim eggs in this one basket. There is another sim I can fly while seeing how MSFS develops (at least until helicopters arrive), so I'm taking a fairly relaxed view of the bugs.

I can understand other viewpoints though, and I do think this could have been held in the oven for a few more months before release. It's worrying that Asobo seems to have just one patching mode involving a large download instead of intermediate hot fixes for just the core sim. Maybe they'll figure out a better way to do that.

 

[Scottoest 1,561]

3 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Then there's something like Wasteland 3, which I really should have waited and read more user reports, because there's a crippling bug that's blocking any progress halfway through the game.

What's the reported bug?  I managed to get through Wasteland 3 with a minimum of bugs, and it sounds like I was a lucky one, lol.  Currently one of my games of the year, bugs aside.

3 hours ago, Paraffin said:

I can understand other viewpoints though, and I do think this could have been held in the oven for a few more months before release. It's worrying that Asobo seems to have just one patching mode involving a large download instead of intermediate hot fixes for just the core sim. Maybe they'll figure out a better way to do that.

Yeah, they definitely should have held it back until the end of the year, and given Asobo more time to work on the avionics and whatnot.  They had to know a lot of seasoned simmers were going to beeline straight for the tubeliners, yet the tubeliners undoubtedly had the MOST problems at launch.

Even if they'd just announced an "early access open beta" or something, I think people would be much less frustrated with the bugs, because expectations would be calibrated accordingly.

Regarding the size of the patch, my sneaking suspicion is that it was so big because it was in the works since before release - then it was backburnered for a couple of weeks while they rushed out the patch for the install problems.