7 hours ago, tpete61 said:

We are 6 weeks in which is 1-1/2 months. They have broken more then they have fixed.

 

From a devs standpoint - the more broken things that are found, the more broken things that can be fixed.

IOW finding the broken things is the hard part.

Cheers

bs

1 minute ago, bean_sprout said:

IOW finding the broken things is the hard part.

I wasn't in the Alpha or Beta but it sounds like 14,000 broken things were found there, many of which are still broken months later.

Does not inspire confidence.

I've flown pretty much every piston aircraft in the sim now and collected a data table of 100%/75%/55% power cruise speeds and fuel flows at 8000 and 12000 feet on a standard day.  Most of the aircraft do not perform anywhere near what the POHs show.  I have to wonder what the Textron 'test pilot' shown in the Textron Partnership video said when he flew the G36.  Basic testing and tuning of the aircraft (even the Standard package, let alone the Premium and Deluxe) has not been done. 

Not to mention that the available aircraft are boring, boring, boring.  Look at the aircraft in the FSX Steam Edition, you get ultralights, a DC-3, fighter jets, it's a diverse range over all of aviation.  MSFS, how many boring single piston aircraft with a G1000 do we need?

So now we can start the discussion about prioritization and resource availability.

Regards

bs

Edited September 25, 20205 yr by bean_sprout

3 hours ago, tpete61 said:

The way it is looking right now you will eventually be spending a large sum on MSFS as well.

Navdata is out of date. Planes are all basic, already many scenery developers are selling addon products. Of course the companies you mention will develop for MSFS. The fan base is much larger pulling in casual gamers who just might purchase their stuff.

I don't believe a simmer will not be investing more money then the base game.

I don't think P3D/XP are going to be idle and let their products die. I don't have a clue but we will see.

I'm not going to pick apart your P3D dissection. You apparently feel MSFS is currently superior to it.

Right now it is not in many ways. Some ways absolutely.

You did not answer my question at all; in fact you’re attempt to conflate the point only illustrates P3Ds inadequacies.  You employed more hyperbolic claims with no substance or evidence to support your supposition...you’re going to have to better on this forum.  Outside of sophisticated aircraft, I feel no need to purchase additional ad-ons   The same is not true for P3D. You need mesh, land class data,True Earth, vector, global building replacements, global tree replacements, global airport replacements, weather engine, sky texture replacement, airport texture  replacement, environment texture replacement (e.g water, grass, rain, sun and moon), sky texture replace, cloud texture replacement, shader manager, FSUIPC to create multiple hardware configurations, add-ons to correct the time bug, add-ons to contol camera views, add-on to manage your add-ons, physics enhancement (ie A2A), and so on. The fact you think MSFS requires the same level of third party add-ons only heightens your ignorance.  To be clear, I have no problem with anyone who supports another sim or highlights MSFS obvious flaws.  However, I take issues with those who purposely subvert reality to promote the sim of their choice.  Again, I’ll ask you how default P3D offers a superior flight sim experience to MSFS?  As a PPL holder, I’ll tell you it doesn’t; in fact, it’s impossible to execute a VFR flight with the former.  

Edited September 26, 20205 yr by kingm56

4 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

I wasn't in the Alpha or Beta but it sounds like 14,000 broken things were found there, many of which are still broken months later.

Does not inspire confidence.

I've flown pretty much every piston aircraft in the sim now and collected a data table of 100%/75%/55% power cruise speeds and fuel flows at 8000 and 12000 feet on a standard day.  Most of the aircraft do not perform anywhere near what the POHs show.  I have to wonder what the Textron 'test pilot' shown in the Textron Partnership video said when he flew the G36.  Basic testing and tuning of the aircraft (even the Standard package, let alone the Premium and Deluxe) has not been done. 

Not to mention that the available aircraft are boring, boring, boring.  Look at the aircraft in the FSX Steam Edition, you get ultralights, a DC-3, fighter jets, it's a diverse range over all of aviation.  MSFS, how many boring single piston aircraft with a G1000 do we need?

You should compare fsx steam to the original launch version of fsx when it comes to aircraft. 

Too many pages to read.  Did you wake up?

4 hours ago, kingm56 said:

You did not answer my question at all; in fact you’re attempt to conflate the point only illustrates P3Ds inadequacies.  You employed more hyperbolic claims with no substance or evidence to support your supposition...you’re going to have to better on this forum.  Outside of sophisticated aircraft, I feel no need to purchase additional ad-ons   The same is not true for P3D. You need mesh, land class data,True Earth, vector, global building replacements, global tree replacements, global airport replacements, weather engine, sky texture replacement, airport texture  replacement, environment texture replacement (e.g water, grass, rain, sun and moon), sky texture replace, cloud texture replacement, shader manager, FSUIPC to create multiple hardware configurations, add-ons to correct the time bug, add-ons to contol camera views, add-on to manage your add-ons, physics enhancement (ie A2A), and so on. The fact you think MSFS requires the same level of third party add-ons only heightens your ignorance.  To be clear, I have no problem with anyone who supports another sim or highlights MSFS obvious flaws.  However, I take issues with those who purposely subvert reality to promote the sim of their choice.  Again, I’ll ask you how default P3D offers a superior flight sim experience to MSFS?  As a PPL holder, I’ll tell you it doesn’t; in fact, it’s impossible to execute a VFR flight with the former.  

Not sure what your talking about as I need none of this stuff. Why would I need a tree, building or airport enhancement? Cloud textures, seriously? None is a requirement!
Your over the top on what is necessary to use P3D!
 

11 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

How else am I (or anyone else) supposed to know what is intended to work, vs what hasn't been implemented, vs what has been implemented and is broken and should be reported as a bug.

You simply do what everyone else does for this platform. you spend countless hours sorting it out for yourself and what you cannot sort out you ask forum members for the information you seek. I cannot see why we need to bother the developers ... not their job obviously. In any case, what else would you contemplate doing instead of this .... Flying .... don't be silly.

IMO, nothing is more essential than a manual.  Apart from that, how much more cost effective, is manning a help desk with unknown number of staff, all of whom, one would think requires training and in multiple countries with multiple languages.  That HAS to be cheaper than producing a one off manual to include with the sim. Whoops, I dont think they provide that either LOL

I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but .... sheeesh

Tony

21 hours ago, Desaix said:

 ...but now...just enjoy sightseeing

I don't get this.  I'm flying the TBM930 and pretty much use it exactly as I have the more complex offerings from Majestic and Carenado in P3D, they're just more complex planes but in the TBM930 I can do pretty much everything I did in P3D in those and then some.  It gook me 25h before I realized I can input an IFR plan and customize it in the MFD and that will sync w/ ATC.  I do only IFR flights so I do not get this oversimplification of MSFS and what can be done with it TODAY, let alone after TPD offerings arrive.  Sure, you're going to have a few more systems to deal with w/ the more complex planes--and thankfully you can because looking out the window in P3D will make you quickly want to go right back to dealing w/ more complex systems!  Accurate photoreal/photgammetrized scenery is way MORE than 'just' eye candy.  The immersion factor can't be touched by the ancient sims, and moreover, performance right out of the download is far superior in MSFS than P3D.  Yes, uber familiar I've used P3D for years n years 30h/week so I'm not making this stuff up! 

9 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

IMO, nothing is more essential than a manual.

OMG!  Then return the product and cite lack of adequate documentation for the return.  
 

Manuals as we know it will be extinct like full service gasoline.  
 

Learn to adapt or stop buying software.  
 

I miss my TVGuide but I know I’m not getting it back

 And no amount of howling on my end will get it back.

 What are YOU willing to give up in the product for better documentation?  

We demand more and more out of the product, we expect to pay the same price for that product and then complain about the compromises made to keep the product at the price point we demanded they maintain despite increasing costs.

 If that’s not an unreasonable sense of entitlement, I don’t know what is?

 Some of you need to get a grip and man up.

I could make a very long answer answering to each of those who have said that MSFS is an unremediated garbage. But it would be a waste of time because you already know fight in the Internet does not make you a winner even if you’re correct..

So my best advice is if you don’t like it.. Don’t use it.. As far as I know P3D and XPlane are still available..

Only the future will tell us if MSFS was worth or not.. For me is doing better every day in pass..

Just remember FSX every one was mad and that thing wasn’t even playable no matter what Pc you have.. First service pack came like 1 year later and it wasn’t much..

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

OMG!  Then return the product and cite lack of adequate documentation for the return.  

wthomas33065,

"IMO, nothing is more essential than a manual"

Is this the only concept that you could find in my post? IMO it is an extreme example of cherry picking.

Please allow me to point out.

1. I am not one of the people who are experiencing these problems and bugs.  My biggest gripe is that setting up the controls is not intuitive in any way, shape, or form.  A manual would have sorted that out.

2. A manual was only one aspect of my post, which was largely pure sarcasm anyway,  and further, I do not really mind if the manual is delivered in on-line form or a printed manual.  A printed manual has in-built costs that an on-line, or included in software, manual does not incur. If you want to waft on about a manual never ever being supplied again, and be accepting of that fact, then so be it.  

3. Because I am very happy with the product, I have absolutely no intention of returning it or making an official complaint to ZenDesk.  I was simply making the point, that, in my opinion, I feel a manual on something like this, is, was, and, always will be a requirement.  Not everybody is operating in 2020 with the computer literate mind of a 20 year old.  Some of us actually struggle with the latest technology and coming to grips with a UI which is very different to anything we have experienced before. 

4. I am not, and I am unsure of why I should be,  prepared to give up anything in order to get  documentation.

5 . Extending the cherry picking session:-

4 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

full service gasoline.

Gasoline is gasoline, benzine, petrol or just plain gas. How can it be full service? Does this mean it makes itself, delivers itself to the distribution point, automatically fills any vehicle that strays close to it, and pays for itself too? YES, I know that is ridiculous, and I know what you mean, but it IS great cherry picking eh?

So, yes I may be old-fashioned, out of touch with 2020 and totally unreasonable for expecting a manual  to be included for only AUD180.00.  I just feel that an included manual, may just have avoided a lot of angst and not just for the aged among us. My main point is that an included manual (software) may well have been cheaper to produce that to supply staff to field a large (IMO) number of queries regarding installation, problem solving, sorting out the UI etc. It is also a far far better practice than leaving it up to the capable community to sort out.  I have to, and wish to personally thank a large number of the community, for helping me in my struggles with the controller figurations etc. 

I further wish to stress, that I am not unhappy, but I DO feel that this release could have been handled better.

Tony

 

51 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

A printed manual has in-built costs that an on-line, or included in software, manual does not incur.

That is not entirely true.  A lot of the cost of a manual, be it printed, online, PDF, or otherwise is the labor it takes to get the information.  It's not a good time to be a technical writer.

Every new feature you add to the product increases the documentation cost tremendously.  And as YOU said, you have no intention of returning the product.  So, what, incentive does a company have to go to the extent of creating detailed documentation when it won't make a difference on whether the item is sold or not?  The bean counters at Microsoft don't care what 'angst' is caused over in AVSIM because of the lack of traditional documentation.

An entire generation is being raised of individuals who get their information from non-traditional sources.  You and I are the old guard, we're dying off.  We have generations of kids who are playing games on multiple consoles and PC's that never crack a manual.  

That's the new world we live in.  And as I said, just like the TVGuide, and the age of Full Service at our gas stations, Traditional manuals and documentation are a thing of the past.  

This will be my last statement on this fact because I don't know how many different ways to say it.  Adapt, or continue to bark at the moon. 

Your choice.  Happy Simming.

I am now sorry  that I mentioned the "lack of a manual" in my first post. It was certainly not my intention to start any argument. My reason for the mention was, that I had read in a post by Mathijus Kok of Aerosoft ,that the Boxed version of MS 2020 included a printed manual.

Andy

andy a,

You have no reason whatsoever to be sorry for your post. 

I think a few people will share our thoughts that a manual is actually required and should have been included in the original release. Even Carenado, oft criticised for their lack of documentation, DO include something, which despite its shortcomings, exceed the MSFS documentation.

I think an included manual for software remains a "must have" and Devs who include it have the right attitude.

Long may the "moon barkers" live .... who knows ... we may even achieve something. We will not achieve anything if we don't.

Tony