Does MSFS do anything really well?

[Virtual-Chris 682]

6 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

Let's see.  For $60.00, you get an incredible weather engine, 30,000+ airports, 400 areas represented in photogrammetric detail,  Satellite imagery of the entire planet, and and 20 planes.  And somehow that's "not enough".

 

Let me be specific...

- My home town airport (Vancouver) CYVR looks horrible and has no night lighting on the ramps. It's like there's been a power outage or the airport is shutdown.

- Downtown Vancouver looks like it is made out of melted blocks

- All the marinas are underwater

- All the beaches in this vicinity are covered in a flat 2d bush texture

- Most mountains have low-res blurry textures for rock faces that make them look very unrealistic

- The main plane I've been flying (208B) needed a mod to get reverse thrust working, the G1000 is also seriously lacking, and there are other issues with how turboprops are handled.

- The ATC is really hit-or-miss.  I've had several instances on IFR approaches where the ATC is asking me to climb to some obscene flight level or decend to a level that would have me hit a mountain (coming in on an approach to Abbotsford from the East for example).

So in the end, to get a semi-realistic simulation, I need to install an airport scenery pack, a city scenery pack, I need to hope they adjust sea level so that all seaside structures like marinas are not underwater, I need them to fix mountain and beach textures, I need a mod for my preferred plane, and for the avionics, and I need a $60 add -on for ATC that doesn't fly me into mountains.

This is not hyperbole. This is facts.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Virtual-Chris

[wthomas33065 994]

11 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Let me be specific...

- My home town airport (Vancouver) CYVR looks horrible and has no night lighting on the ramps. It's like there's been a power outage or the airport is shutdown.

- Downtown Vancouver looks like it is made out of melted blocks

- All the marinas are underwater

- All the beaches in this vicinity are covered in a flat 2d bush texture

- Most mountains have low-res blurry textures for rock faces that make them look very unrealistic

- The main plane I've been flying (208B) needed a mod to get reverse thrust working, the G1000 is also seriously lacking, and there are other issues with how turboprops are handled.

- The ATC is really hit-or-miss.  I've had several instances on IFR approaches where the ATC is asking me to climb to some obscene flight level or decend to a level that would have me hit a mountain (coming in on an approach to Abbotsford from the East for example).

So in the end, to get a semi-realistic simulation, I need to install an airport scenery pack, a city scenery pack, I need to hope they adjust sea level so that all seaside structures like marinas are not underwater, I need them to fix mountain and beach textures, I need a mod for my preferred plane, and for the avionics, and I need a $60 add -on for ATC that doesn't fly me into mountains.

This is not hyperbole. This is facts.

Funny.  You ignored my suggestion to take FS9 or FSX for a spin to compare.  You failed to take my suggestion.

1.  The "melted" building issues are a result of photogrammetry.  I suggest you investigate on this technology a little more.  Even Google Earth suffers from this.  This is a limitation in the technology, not the simulator per se.

2.  In previous versions, the entire city of Vancouver was basically some hand picked buildings surrounded by random autogen and tree placement with random urban textures and landclass.  And you're complaining that marina's that were NEVER there before are now underwater because the water mask went over the satellite data.  You know the 2 PETABYTES of data you now have FREE access to.  Pretty laughable if you ask me.  Does any other FS product accurately show those marinas out of the box?  I'm pretty sure not.

3.  The low resolution textures are a limitation to the satellite data available.  Would you prefer generic high resolution textures and "landclass" as was implemented on previous versions?   Not all satellite imagery is created equal.  That again has nothing to do with the sim.

4.  There are known issues with the G1000 and those have been acknowledged by the development team and discussed ad nauseum.  

5.  ATC is basically the same ATC used in FS9 and FSX.  It certainly isn't worse.

  If you want to do a serious comparison to fs9 and fsx, feel free to do so.  Those each cost $60. on release, and offered much less than MSFS has offered.  

If you are unwilling to admit that simple fact, there's really nothing I can do.

[marsman2020 1,310]

I'm still wondering what the magic incantation is that will allow me to simulate in a realistic way (in a product that calls itself 'Flight Simulator') flying an approach in IMC at an airport that only has RNAV approaches without a working GPS.....  I guess I'm just too stupid to see how that can be done.... Maybe one of the Great AVSIM Gods here can explain it.

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by marsman2020

[Virtual-Chris 682]

24 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

Funny.  You ignored my suggestion to take FS9 or FSX for a spin to compare.  You failed to take my suggestion.

1.  The "melted" building issues are a result of photogrammetry.  I suggest you investigate on this technology a little more.  Even Google Earth suffers from this.  This is a limitation in the technology, not the simulator per se.

2.  In previous versions, the entire city of Vancouver was basically some hand picked buildings surrounded by random autogen and tree placement with random urban textures and landclass.  And you're complaining that marina's that were NEVER there before are now underwater because the water mask went over the satellite data.  You know the 2 PETABYTES of data you now have FREE access to.  Pretty laughable if you ask me.  Does any other FS product accurately show those marinas out of the box?  I'm pretty sure not.

3.  The low resolution textures are a limitation to the satellite data available.  Would you prefer generic high resolution textures and "landclass" as was implemented on previous versions?   Not all satellite imagery is created equal.  That again has nothing to do with the sim.

4.  There are known issues with the G1000 and those have been acknowledged by the development team and discussed ad nauseum.  

5.  ATC is basically the same ATC used in FS9 and FSX.  It certainly isn't worse.

  If you want to do a serious comparison to fs9 and fsx, feel free to do so.  Those each cost $60. on release, and offered much less than MSFS has offered.  

If you are unwilling to admit that simple fact, there's really nothing I can do.

I have no interest in trying FS9 or FSX... that won't change the fact that nearly every aspect of this simulator requires an add-on or a mod to make good.

[wthomas33065 994]

5 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I have no interest in trying FS9 or FSX... that won't change the fact that nearly every aspect of this simulator requires an add-on or a mod to make good.

Like every other flight simulator on the market.  We're done here.  Don't let the door hit you on the behind.  Be well.

[BusheFlyer 87]

15 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I have no interest in trying FS9 or FSX... that won't change the fact that nearly every aspect of this simulator requires an add-on or a mod to make good.

Yeah, okay.. bye Virtual-Karen!

[wthomas33065 994]

33 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

I'm still wondering what the magic incantation is that will allow me to simulate in a realistic way (in a product that calls itself 'Flight Simulator') flying an approach in IMC at an airport that only has RNAV approaches without a working GPS.....  I guess I'm just too stupid to see how that can be done.... Maybe one of the Great AVSIM Gods here can explain it.

 

No, you're not too stupid, you're just being a troll.  And you know this......Back under the bridge with ya.

[marsman2020 1,310]

1 minute ago, wthomas33065 said:

No, you're not too stupid, you're just being a troll.  And you know this......Back under the bridge with ya.

BusheFlyer says he can fly "the approaches" without a GPS.  I'd like to know his secret method for flying approaches to RNAV only airports in IMC with no working GPS.  Since he's stated he can do it, there must be a way?  Is there a how-to guide for this somewhere?

[Scottoest 1,561]

1 hour ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Let me be specific...

- My home town airport (Vancouver) CYVR looks horrible and has no night lighting on the ramps. It's like there's been a power outage or the airport is shutdown.

- Downtown Vancouver looks like it is made out of melted blocks

- All the marinas are underwater

- All the beaches in this vicinity are covered in a flat 2d bush texture

- Most mountains have low-res blurry textures for rock faces that make them look very unrealistic

- The main plane I've been flying (208B) needed a mod to get reverse thrust working, the G1000 is also seriously lacking, and there are other issues with how turboprops are handled.

- The ATC is really hit-or-miss.  I've had several instances on IFR approaches where the ATC is asking me to climb to some obscene flight level or decend to a level that would have me hit a mountain (coming in on an approach to Abbotsford from the East for example).

So in the end, to get a semi-realistic simulation, I need to install an airport scenery pack, a city scenery pack, I need to hope they adjust sea level so that all seaside structures like marinas are not underwater, I need them to fix mountain and beach textures, I need a mod for my preferred plane, and for the avionics, and I need a $60 add -on for ATC that doesn't fly me into mountains.

This is not hyperbole. This is facts.

The ATC isn't great, and the avionics are indeed buggy and wonky right now.  They've acknowledged both, and are working on them.

Almost everything else you list is just very particular whinges about a very particular city and airport not looking as good as you want out of the box, to which you therefore conclude Asobo don't do anything well.

I've been over Vancouver in the sim.  It looks completely fine at normal heights for flying, unless you're close enough to the buildings to see the limitations of the photogrammetry, or... know where the marinas are.

If this is your benchmark for whether Asobo succeeded in threading multiple data sources together to create a generally believable facsimile of the entire planet for $60, then you were setting yourself up to be disappointed from the start.

[wthomas33065 994]

17 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

BusheFlyer says he can fly "the approaches" without a GPS.  I'd like to know his secret method for flying approaches to RNAV only airports in IMC with no working GPS.  Since he's stated he can do it, there must be a way?  Is there a how-to guide for this somewhere?

He said he can do an IFR approach without a GPS, he didn't say he could do an RNAV approach without a GPS.  

The point he was making is that a broken GPS does not make the program "useless" and does not "disqualify" it as a flight simulator.  

In reality you can't fly into an RNAV only airport in IMC with no working GPS.  So you would need to go to an alternative.  

So to be fair, the GPS is functional enough to hand fly the approach pattern and make it to the ground.  The GPS isn't completely broken as you contend, and he didn't imply you can fly an RNAV approach without a GPS.

And as far as I know, not being a pilot, I'm pretty sure there is an approach plate even for RNAV only airports that show what the glideslope for the runway is.  So yeah......

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by wthomas33065

[BusheFlyer 87]

9 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

BusheFlyer says he can fly "the approaches" without a GPS.  I'd like to know his secret method for flying approaches to RNAV only airports in IMC with no working GPS.  Since he's stated he can do it, there must be a way?  Is there a how-to guide for this somewhere?

I'm happy with MSFS and you are not, in your world "totally broken".. I have tried to give you examples of how you can overcome the current limitations and gaps in your knowledge but instead you wish to persist in these childish responses and yet more instance that it's all broken. This is not going to go anywhere constructive.. so okay.. it's broken.. tough world kid, perhaps go do something fun.

[marsman2020 1,310]

Just now, BusheFlyer said:

I'm happy with MSFS and you are not, in your world "totally broken".. I have tried to give you examples of how you can overcome the current limitations and gaps in your knowledge but instead you wish to persist in these childish responses and yet more instance that it's all broken. This is not going to go anywhere constructive.. so okay.. it's broken.. tough world kid, perhaps go do something fun.

But how do I fly the approaches into RNAV only airports in IMC without a working GPS?  Since you said it's possible.....

[himmelhorse 1,276]

52 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I have no interest in trying FS9 or FSX... that won't change the fact that nearly every aspect of this simulator requires an add-on or a mod to make good.

Mate, 

What you are saying is simply incorrect. Well, the second part of your statement at least.

Maybe you should add MSFS to your list of sims you have no interest in. 

That at least would give the rest of us some relief from strange responses like the one I have just quoted.

 

[BusheFlyer 87]

4 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

But how do I fly the approaches into RNAV only airports in IMC without a working GPS?  Since you said it's possible.....

Why don't you elaborate that a bit more.. why not add to it.. "with an engine fire.." for extra effect? The answer to that question is you would do what you would do in real life when confronted with a problem, divert to a nearby ILS for your descent and then fly VFR above MSA to the RNAV only airport if weather permits.

Read my post above.. I couldn't care any less about your experience going forward with MSFS.. perhaps you will continue to rant and rave on forums feeling impotent or perhaps you can learn some civility, and that you don't have to exaggerate everything you say. 

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

24 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

BusheFlyer says he can fly "the approaches" without a GPS.  I'd like to know his secret method for flying approaches to RNAV only airports in IMC with no working GPS.  Since he's stated he can do it, there must be a way?  Is there a how-to guide for this somewhere?

RNAV computers have been around since the 70's, I must be misunderstanding something.