Who is MSFS for?

[rtodepart 761]

13 hours ago, dilore said:

To whoom would you recommend MSFS in its current state? Multiple choice.

1. Gamers (= w/o no real interest in flight simulation) looking for achievements
2. Gamers looking for social interaction
3. Gamers interested in travel, sightseeing
4. People with average computers and internet connections
5. People with interest in flight without a lot of gaming- and configuration experience
6. Experienced GA simmers (VFR & IFR)
7. Experienced tube-liner simmers
8. Experienced simmers prefering realistic scenery
9. Experienced simmers prefering a realistic flight environment (weather, airports, aerodynamics, systems)

 

Anyone. 
 

people seem to forget that for the must part lots ot folks who use the software will never know what the actual experience of piloting is supposed to feel like and often they enjoy the experience . 
 

back in the days of FS98 around the time i started working on my PPL the sim never felt the same anymore but that did not stoped me from enjoying the time I spent in it even after I started to notice what the difference between real life and home sim was like . 
 

At no point back then I started to hate the state of every release after that or neither did I wrote a letter to Microsoft venting my problems and pointing out the faults of the sim . 
 

Again I’ll recommend today in 2020 to anyone on your list . 

[Wobbie 938]

Dont forget the biggest market still to come, the XBox market..

[BusheFlyer 87]

Everyone.

The thing is, many flight sim enthusiasts are never ever going to be satisfied totally. They are chasing the proverbial dragons tail, thinking this 'addon' or the next update.. or DX12 is going to reach the apex of their goal. The reality is somewhat different.. flight simulators are just that.. simulators.. they are not REAL. Technology will never ever be able to create a real flight experience with all it's complexities with aircraft, weather and so forth. So everyone, should enjoy it for it is and for what they personally get from it.

[Noel 4,499]

4 hours ago, flycln said:

I assume most of that is the fact that you're not using default planes in P3D.

Actually, planeware is only part of the analysis.  What I'm considering when I say this is the vastly greater amount of high quality scenery and atmospherics coming thru the machine in MSFS versus P3D tricked out w/ everything except TruEarth product.  The closest fairly complex 3PD plane performance-wise to default planes in P3D 4.5 might be the Majestic Q400.  If I attempted to run the following scenes in P3D 4.5 it would choke beyond belief, especially on the CPU side, and I'd be dialing back settings affecting the CPU.  Here are some recent examples and they're really pretty tame compared to some as you've probably viewed.  Hard to compare them as you're looking at totally different scenery AND atmosphere, and that is my summary opinion.   The 9900K HT-enabled has beaucoup headroom for complex airware I'm quite convinced.  We will be looking for a significant GPU upgrade when they become available.

 

[Noel 4,499]

19 hours ago, duckbilled said:

It comes down to whether you were lucky enough to read the right post on one of the many forums before you try to update or install.

Read no posts prior to applying the mandatory update here, and almost everything has been fine.

[amahran 47]

Literally anyone can fly in MSFS.

I have a handful of friends who are flying casually and enjoy it very much, one who’s trying his own career mode with a virtual airline running short cargo hops in GA planes, and myself flying tube liner flights all over the place.

The sim is usable, you just gotta put a bit of effort into knowing where the bugs are, and work around them accordingly. If you’re sharp enough to know the sim’s limitations for now, you can do anything you could have done in P3D, FSX, or X-Plane.

To everyone complaining that the sim isn’t study level, be honest with yourself; neither was FSX when it first came out, 3rd party devs had to play catch up for a few months. And you expect me to believe you want to study an airliner but can’t study a simulator without throwing a fit?

[Wobbie 938]

Study level? What is that? FSX is still not a study level sim. Maybe a 'not for entertainment' sim' could be called a study level product, as it is licensed for that! 

Remember we are using an entertainment product, Rather call it flying or learning Complex aircraft!

It's like trying to impress by saying that you are flying a sim, not a game (even though it's an XBox product) Shhh!

 

[Bdub22 1,611]

On 10/4/2020 at 12:36 AM, langly said:

If you enjoy study level procedures of any aircraft.... how exactly is this sim in any way helping?

You do understand the developers that create these study level products are working on them now, right? Of course they're not ready to go right off the bat. This sim is the most promising thing we've seen in a decade. 

[WestAir 2,522]

Why do so many non-pilots insist on gate-keeping what is or isn't a flight sim?

[Wobbie 938]

6 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Why do so many non-pilots insist on gate-keeping what is or isn't a flight sim?

 

Erm.. I'm a pilot!! (Real) Only a PPL, though!

[Bradleyjs 9]

6. Experienced GA simmers (VFR & IFR) [and IRL Pilot]

8. Experienced simmers prefering realistic scenery

9. Experienced simmers prefering a realistic flight environment (weather, airports, aerodynamics, systems)

 

[duckbilled 310]

2 hours ago, Noel said:

Read no posts prior to applying the mandatory update here, and almost everything has been fine.

I hear you. I read most of the tips afterwards, and any performance issues I've had with MSFS were hardware related. Sim exposed a issue with my memory and an unstable overclock. I just pointed to that thread, because there were a lot of explanations of what causes issues, and if those details were stickies (especially Rob's post), it may save people a bunch of frustration.

[Wobbie 938]

7 minutes ago, Bradleyjs said:

 

6. Experienced GA simmers (VFR & IFR) [and IRL Pilot]

8. Experienced simmers prefering realistic scenery

9. Experienced simmers prefering a realistic flight environment (weather, airports, aerodynamics, systems)

 

 

 

Elitist gamers..

Non experienced GA simmers

Non experienced gamers that could have fun

Hardly realistic environment.. weird sunken airport, spikes, very tall Australian building, Godzilla, UFO's?? , maybe immersive is the correct terminology.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Wobbie

[Noel 4,499]

6 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

Elitist gamers..

Non experienced GA simmers

Non experienced gamers that could have fun

Hardly realistic environment.. weird sunken airport, spikes, very tall Australian building, Godzilla, UFO's?? , maybe immersive is the correct terminology.

Is trolling your preferred activity when you're pretending to be a pilot in the other sims and get bored because there's nothing worth looking in the cartoon world below when you reach cruise and engage the AP?

[OHN767 82]

I think everybody, you dont need to know anything about flying to enjoy it, then the more you learn and educate yourself it gets even more enjoyable, soon you will buy advanced planes and scenery and you will be out of money, but you have a great hobby for the rest of  your life.