40 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

The users that couldn't figure it out and found it to complex either got a refund or just gave up on the game.  The users that have stayed on are the ones that figured out how to play the game.

Yes because no one else will ever buy MSFS2020 ever except the people who bought it on launch day, and there is no way that adding documentation could make it more inviting to other new people in the future.

18 minutes ago, pmb said:

As already stated, I doubt MS/Asobo will provide manuals if they didn't so until now.

Just for completeness, if anyone is looking for manuals I know two of them.

1. The SoFly Guide 

2. The RDPresets Guide 

I bought both of them (they are cheap).

Maybe MS should pay one of these third parties to produce some documentation that could be included with the simulator.  Or they could just go back to FSX, or FS9, or whatever their last good manual was and spend a minimal amount of time doing a 1:1 update for the new sim.

You know, this is exactly why I have stayed away from flight sims for the last decade, because the answer to poor releases is always "just keep throwing money at it."  It's a really off putting attitude.

27 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

The majority of the flight sim community want to see "study level" aircraft, especially "study level" airliners....

I'm not sure how one arrives at that conclusion as I don't even think it is possible to define what the flight sim community is.  I consider myself a "flight simmer" as I spend countless hours flying around in the C152, C172, C208, TBM930 here on MSFS.  On XPlane11 I loved the Cirrus Jet.  The only "airliner" I ever enjoyed flying on XPlane was the stock A320NEO, and I enjoyed that because it was so easy to fly.  I wanted nothing to do with the ZIBO and cold startups.

Honestly, for me, and I say "for me" for a reason, is I could really give a hoot if the planes I fly are exactly like the original.  Close is nice, as I don't want the C152 climbing at 3000 feet per minute with an altitude ceiling of 32000 feet.

How many folks are out there that are like "me" and just want to have an enjoyable experience to pass some time?  I have no idea.  I may be the only one, or I may be the majority.  Does the "majority" want "study level" aircraft.  Again, I don't know.  My guess is no, but that could be wrong.  And fortunately, those that do want those, already have simulators that provide that experience, so really, MSFS has filled the gap that wasn't there before, a great VFR experience with aircraft that "seem" to operate as one would expect (for the most part) with fixes coming in on a regular basis for those parts that don't.

WIll it be nice some day when MSFS fills both needs.  Yes it will.  But being a month in, I'm good!

 

3 minutes ago, LarryD said:

I'm not sure how one arrives at that conclusion as I don't even think it is possible to define what the flight sim community is.  I consider myself a "flight simmer" as I spend countless hours flying around in the C152, C172, C208, TBM930 here on MSFS.  On XPlane11 I loved the Cirrus Jet.  The only "airliner" I ever enjoyed flying on XPlane was the stock A320NEO, and I enjoyed that because it was so easy to fly.  I wanted nothing to do with the ZIBO and cold startups.

Honestly, for me, and I say "for me" for a reason, is I could really give a hoot if the planes I fly are exactly like the original.  Close is nice, as I don't want the C152 climbing at 3000 feet per minute with an altitude ceiling of 32000 feet.

How many folks are out there that are like "me" and just want to have an enjoyable experience to pass some time?  I have no idea.  I may be the only one, or I may be the majority.  Does the "majority" want "study level" aircraft.  Again, I don't know.  My guess is no, but that could be wrong.  And fortunately, those that do want those, already have simulators that provide that experience, so really, MSFS has filled the gap that wasn't there before, a great VFR experience with aircraft that "seem" to operate as one would expect (for the most part) with fixes coming in on a regular basis for those parts that don't.

WIll it be nice some day when MSFS fills both needs.  Yes it will.  But being a month in, I'm good!

 

I probably should have said the "hard cores" in the flight sim community.  I doubt the casuals (ie. people who fly the planes like Grand Theft Auto) care much about study level airliners.  The airliners in there for casuals is probably fun enough and complex enough for them to fly.

Edited September 18, 20205 yr by abrams_tank

46 minutes ago, LarryD said:

How many folks are out there that are like "me" and just want to have an enjoyable experience to pass some time?  I have no idea.  I may be the only one, or I may be the majority.  Does the "majority" want "study level" aircraft.  Again, I don't know.  My guess is no, but that could be wrong

I am not a pilot and never will be. However, I spent my entire working career in the airline and travel industry. I have been playing MSFS since I retired in 1998 and I have zero interest in *study level* ac. I am perfectly happy with FSX-SE  and non complex airliners that look right and also look like they're doing the right thing. My FSX looks terrific, since Steve's DX10 Fixer, and I have about 30 HD airports. With the exception of popping autogen and some odd ATC stuff, I'm happy as a clam that I didn't buy MSFS 2020! I never will buy it unless there are good looking simple to operate, and navigate, airliners like the default airliners FSX!

Bruce

29 minutes ago, brucets said:

I am not a pilot and never will be. However, I spent my entire working career in the airline and travel industry. I have been playing MSFS since I retired in 1998 and I have zero interest in *study level* ac. I am perfectly happy with FSX-SE  and non complex airliners that look right and also look like they're doing the right thing. My FSX looks terrific, since Steve's DX10 Fixer, and I have about 30 HD airports. With the exception of popping autogen and some odd ATC stuff, I'm happy as a clam that I didn't buy MSFS 2020! I never will buy it unless there are good looking simple to operate, and navigate, airliners like the default airliners FSX!

Bruce

So you haven't tried it but are willing to go off opinions and hearsay...got it.

I downloaded the main installation in about 9 hours, This update has been on download for two days and it's still not even half done!

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

I have seen a few complaints about a missing user manual but to be honest, it's very sparse.

What????? to be honest I do not think it is or was sparse. It has to be said, that, had a manual been included, a lot of user problems could have been solved, and without all the negative publicity.  Most people, initially did not have a clue where to start, leave out the fixing of perceived problems.  As I have stated before, REAL men, of course, would not consider looking at it though LOL

The good, or bad, news is that there is a manual available on Flysimaviation for 10 British pounds.  Actually not a bad price for something that SHOULD have been included in the programme. 

Tony

3 hours ago, LarryD said:

I'm not sure how one arrives at that conclusion as I don't even think it is possible to define what the flight sim community is.  I consider myself a "flight simmer" as I spend countless hours flying around in the C152, C172, C208, TBM930 here on MSFS.  On XPlane11 I loved the Cirrus Jet.  The only "airliner" I ever enjoyed flying on XPlane was the stock A320NEO, and I enjoyed that because it was so easy to fly.  I wanted nothing to do with the ZIBO and cold startups.

Honestly, for me, and I say "for me" for a reason, is I could really give a hoot if the planes I fly are exactly like the original.  Close is nice, as I don't want the C152 climbing at 3000 feet per minute with an altitude ceiling of 32000 feet.

How many folks are out there that are like "me" and just want to have an enjoyable experience to pass some time?  I have no idea.  I may be the only one, or I may be the majority.  Does the "majority" want "study level" aircraft.  Again, I don't know.  My guess is no, but that could be wrong.  And fortunately, those that do want those, already have simulators that provide that experience, so really, MSFS has filled the gap that wasn't there before, a great VFR experience with aircraft that "seem" to operate as one would expect (for the most part) with fixes coming in on a regular basis for those parts that don't.

WIll it be nice some day when MSFS fills both needs.  Yes it will.  But being a month in, I'm good!

 

I kind of sit in an odd middle position.  I like to have a couple study level aircraft, but I also enjoy just taking a default aircraft up and going sightseeing since the MS sims have generally either had pretty good visuals or addons that made them really good like OrbX stuff.  For FSX I had the 737NGX, QW BAE series, Carenado 185 with all the bush versions, and the RealAir Lancair Legacy. I also flew a lot of time in the stock Beech 58 though for instance.

17 hours ago, steve310002 said:

Just because these 2 items are important to you and the rest not doesn't mean the many other items included are suddenly worth $0 based on your opinion.

actually, items and features can be worth $0 if the user has absolutely no intention of using them. 

I luv the Textron video.  That is what this hobby is all about.

Cheers

bs

5 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

What????? to be honest I do not think it is or was sparse. It has to be said, that, had a manual been included, a lot of user problems could have been solved, and without all the negative publicity.  Most people, initially did not have a clue where to start, leave out the fixing of perceived problems.  As I have stated before, REAL men, of course, would not consider looking at it though LOL

The good, or bad, news is that there is a manual available on Flysimaviation for 10 British pounds.  Actually not a bad price for something that SHOULD have been included in the programme. 

Tony

The threads for request for a user manual in the official MSFS forums is a lot sparse compared to say, threads on the 225/3 weather bug.  It’s obvious that people over at the official MSFS forums want the weather bug fixed over having a user manual.

Like I said, discussion about a user manual is much more sparse over at the official MSFS forums.  That’s not to say I haven’t seen any threads or discussion of it - I have seen some threads and discussion of it.  But the number of threads and discussion of the user manual is dwarfed by other issues (ie. the 225/3 weather bug).

8 hours ago, LarryD said:

I'm not sure how one arrives at that conclusion as I don't even think it is possible to define what the flight sim community is. 

I agree with your overall point, but I also think there's no question that a study level airliner is basically the "other shoe" a lot of the hardcore flight sim audience are waiting to drop with this sim.  Bugs and stuff aside, it's the one thing you see cited most for why people are still splitting time between MSFS and another sim, or have said they will check in with MSFS again in several months, etc.

Ultimately I think a lot of people are just anxious and impatient to see MSFS get to the same mature state as it's competitors, but that'll take time.

15 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

But the number of threads and discussion of the user manual is dwarfed by other issues (ie. the 225/3 weather bug)

Forgive me for taking this sentence out of your response. I simply want to comment that that does not in any way mean that there have been very few discussions or comments about the lack of a manual.

I understand completely where your logic comes from, and yes, I agree completely that a fix is more much betterer than trying to find a fix in the manual, particularly if the item is broken in the first place.

Finally, whilst admitting that this is my pet gripe for MSFS, the principle is, that this discussion should NOT be taking place at all because a manual should have been an integral part of the software.

Tony 

7 hours ago, DylanM said:

So you haven't tried it but are willing to go off opinions and hearsay...got it.

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:

7 hours ago, DylanM said:

I never will buy it unless there are good looking simple to operate, and navigate, airliners like the default airliners FSX!

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.

7 hours ago, Brandon01110 said:

actually, items and features can be worth $0 if the user has absolutely no intention of using them. 

But that's your perception. With that perspective anything only has the value you give it. In reality though someone else here, that is MS, rightly or wrongly, has determind the value that includes all items in the premuim deluxe content. For someone else who prefers the Cirrus SR22, they could say thats worth 60 dollars to them. Then everyone has their own perception but it is the vendor setting the value not the customer. If I bought a new car for 20,000 dollars just for the extra stereo upgrade and the stereo didn't please me in the end, would the car be worth $0? Would I sell it to the next person for $0? Maybe it was a bad purchase on my behalf, but is it now worthless?

Look, I fully agree that the content should work as marketed, and I too am suspicous of large companies taking advantage of consumers with false advertising but I am also aware that with a new flight sim as complex as this, things will take time to work. If the MSFS 787 is still broken after 1 year, then I will gladly vent my frustrations on here. I also do not agree that the product should have been launched as early as it was and believe more time may have been useful but I also accept and enjoy it for what it currently is and trust that the devs will patch the 787 and other aircraft in the near future.

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by steve310002