12 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

You have no audience.

Given that we're on page 4...he's got an audience, and a fair amount of upvotes

Edited October 1, 20205 yr by DylanM

1 hour ago, airlinejets said:

Did you miss your plane?

I own the plane..

37 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Think twice? More like think 30 or 40 times.

I have almost no idea why DTG decided to stick their foot into this swamp. I know what they probably intended, but..... I don't think they knew us very well, though I give kudos to their attempt to build a bridge to the community.

Likewise, the Aerofly team is amazingly skilled and dedicated, and with essentially just two or three guys they pulled off a miracle. Even now, their working avionics are more reliable than that put out by the entire 200+ Asobo team to date. Their autopilot actually works!

But I also thought (and think) they were nuts to enter this thankless market.

Now we have Asobo, and once again I have no idea what drove them and Microsoft to do it. If anybody had ever asked me, I would have told them to either run for the hills while the getting was good, or make another shooting game and actually generate some serious profit for their shareholders.

I'm assuming that somebody high up was playing amongst mounds of premium Columbian Catnip, and while delusional, decided to do a flight sim, I imagine right about now the enthusiast community is giving them a serious case of "What the heck did I step in?"

HiFlyer,

I am getting a vague sort of impression that you may not be extremely happy with this sim or the developers.  I cannot imagine why you would not "vent" instead of your very correct action of informing the Devs through THEIR support forum.  I wonder what could be wrong.

With 11,000 posts coming up, many many of which I have followed and enjoyed, I am somewhat surprised at your vitriol. I hope things improve dramatically for you in the near future. 

Tony

4 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

I am getting a vague sort of impression that you may not be extremely happy with this sim or the developers.  I cannot imagine why you would not "vent" instead of your very correct action of informing the Devs through THEIR support forum.  I wonder what could be wrong.

I'm fine with both the sim and Asobo. 

I just believe that looking at the history, you have to be a masochist to enter this market, as we have a documented habit of biting the living word not allowed out of the hand that feeds us, and here we go again.

HiFlyer,

I think you picked up on my twitter and bisted sense of humour here.  However, despite the history (with all platforms) I don't totally agree with you, but, this may be due to the fact that I am personally having no problems, other than suffering through the wait for 3PD aircraft. I do however, understand the frustration of some with this sims' introduction to the fawning public.

Tony

56 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I'm fine with both the sim and Asobo. 

I just believe that looking at the history, you have to be a masochist to enter this market, as we have a documented habit of biting the living word not allowed out of the hand that feeds us, and here we go again.

That's funny, I kind of thought that when I spent $90 USD for a flight sim -- which is more than I've ever paid before for any flight sim -- and even had a hand in the Alpha test where many people including myself were offering feedback, that it would be more polished before they released it.

That's an opinion, nothing more. And as I've said before, I'm fairly relaxed about complex sims like this in the early days. But that doesn't mean I won't call a spade a spade. This thing needs work; lots of it. 

Microsoft knew exactly what they were getting into with this release, as far as the reception from the more hardcore simmers would go. This isn't their first rodeo. Meanwhile, they'll make a ton of money from buyers who only want to gawk at the world scenery, and I really don't blame them for that; It's a cool system they've come up with here for generating scenery.

Edited October 1, 20205 yr by Paraffin

The essence of my comments was simply this: give the developers some time to fix the issues. Any objective observer would agree that the labor associated with building a flight simulator Is monumental. Assume noble intent by MS instead of bashing the effort they have made to deliver true immersions. While the criticism are valid, it appears that they are committed to fixing these bugs. All of us want excellence, but excellence is ultimately achieved thru corrections.

14 hours ago, Huascar said:

Too many of you complain about trivial issues.

My flying is purpose driven.  I fly to destinations as a fan of the sports teams I embrace,  That based on their game schedules.  So when my Chicago team travels to Cincinnati, then after a series there on to Cleveland.  Then a final home series back in Chicago.  I fly that schedule.  I cannot afford time wise to lose time lost due to circumstances experienced during flights in a new sim, despite that it is a pretty sim. So I later have mirrored flights in FSX SE in this new sim.  In baseball terms I am batting .500.  Not bad for baseball, but not good for simulator flying in available time, much less devoting that risk of lost time first to a sim that on 1 out of two flights cost me the time spent.  Example.  My flight from Cincy to Cleveland in FSX SE in the Milviz B55 Baron was without issue.  My later flight with the MSFS 2020 Baron G38 encountered a situation where in IMC the IAF for the approach into KBKF was missing in the database.  The only approach fix was for the FAF, and the turn angle was 140°.  That is not the approach angle.  That is the angle of the turn required to acquire the approach, in IMC IFR conditions at the time.  Impossible to achieve and still acquire the guided approach.

So imagine my choice later, after a home series in Chicago, for which sim I would fly for a nearly 4 hour flight from Chicago Midway to Denver KBJC.  That in the faster and longer range Realair Turbine Duke v2.  No way I can risk that or even more time to a simulation that might present me with an still-in-development issue.  

And yesterday I needed to complete a 3.6 hour TDv2 flight from KBJC in Denver to KOAK in Oakland, California.  I positively needed to make it by game time.  Could not depend of flying it twice.  And guess what.  Sox won!

I completed a totally optional pre-flight from Oakland to Burbank today with the C172 (G1000) in MSFS and it was a totally enjoyable VFR flight.  Went off without a hitch.  2.4 ours of sightseeing along the Pacific coast.  Loved it. But the Sox lost today and the series,tied1-1, has a deciding game tomorrow.  Will I fly to Burbank again?  Or back to Chicago by way of Denver?  Will be in the TDv2.

Well, I suppose if your sim flying has actual ramifications to real world sports teams, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

47 minutes ago, Huascar said:

All of us want excellence, but excellence is ultimately achieved thru corrections.

I would add, mate, "and 3PDs"  This sim will NEVER be truly excellent (same applies to ALL other platforms) using default ATC, Aircraft and Utilities. Despite the difficulties of some users, it is impossible to deny that following corrections and updates in the future, it will become (in fact already is) an excellent base for the 3PDs to work on and to add to.

Tony

5 hours ago, TacomaSailor said:

How can the Flight Planning software be such an abysmal failure that I cannot control the order in which waypoints are added to the plan?  What can be more basic to a flight simulator that to tell it I want to fly from X to Z via A and then Y?  Sure - SimBrief and/or LittleNavMap will get the job done but who makes a flight simulator with terrible flight planning?

Flight planning is not abysmal at all. It's simplified and that was a design choice. They're not trying to supplant 3PDs. The default works for me for how I play the sim.

4 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

If I yell louder and interrupt more, does that make MSFS better?  Sorry couldn't resist.

I do not think it worked yesterday, but that is "debatable"

Tony

26 minutes ago, Slides said:

Flight planning is not abysmal at all. It's simplified and that was a design choice. They're not trying to supplant 3PDs. The default works for me for how I play the sim.

Similar experience here ie. flight planning works for me.
I have only flown the TBM 930 in the sim. The autopilot works extremely well and follows a manually entered flight plan. Flight plans entered into the “G3000” in the TBM match and follow the flight plans entered into my real world ForeFlight App with a high level of accuracy. I use the FlightAware client to integrate ForeFlight into the sim. The sim sees ADS-B traffic (slightly delayed) and all the read outs in ForeFlight (TAS, vertical speeds, altitudes etc.) are extremely close to the sim values (or vice versus which ever way you want to compare). What more could I want than have a real world app integrate seamlessly with this sim. ForeFlight also allows me to enter precise user defined waypoints that I can follow in the sim for VFR flights.

PS Just editing a video now with RNAV and VFR components incorporating ForeFlight and the TBM flight plan/flight management system.

12 hours ago, jpe828 said:

Sometimes I worry that all the complaining will somehow result in walking away from the project... then you would have alot of real upset people. Like seriously, it is buggy... but it could be good if we just let it develop. They are eager to work with the community. Give it time, it is EARLY days. 

That wouldn't happen for quite sometime as long as $$$ is rolling in. This appears to be the case so I wouldn't worry about them walking away anytime soon.

I think i'm not to picky that it word not allowed me off because at the moment i can't even re-install this "masterpiece".