Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Virtual-Chris

Does MSFS do anything really well?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Virtual-Chris said:

find the ATC infuriatingly useless... asking me to expedite my climb to FL140 on final.  I had to install a mod to just get reverse thrust working on the 208B. All of the mountains I fly by have poor textures, all marinas are underwater, the beaches covered in a flat 2d bush texture, most of Vancouver is made of melted buildings, CYVR has zero lighting on the ramps.  My AP seems to have a mind of its own sometimes.  The other day I tried to find out how to do a pop-up IFR clearance... doesn't exist.  I'm looking for an immersive flying experience and there's a lot of issues detracting from it.

I am totally with you on this. This morning I set up a flight plan flying from Cairns to Townsville in the DA62. I set the flight height at 3500 in order to comply with direction of travel, civil GA requirements and to do some sight seeing. I am given ATC approval to take off and climb to 3500 (set on autopilot) and off I go. I get to 3500 feet and I am then told to climb to 4000ft so this not only does not comply with direction of flight (south = odd feet, GA travel (+500ft) it also negates all attempts to set a height in the navlog.  Simple solution is to cancel IFR and Go with my route and height requirements.  Annoying but not a deal breaker.  What to me is worse in P3D is the number of unprofessional airline pilots who are constantly 300 ft above or below their assigned altitude and other similar nonsensities with default ATC in all platforms.  Again, inconsistancies, but not really deal breakers.  No real point is pausing the sim, going outside to pick up a brick to hurl through the monitor screen.

At least, I now know that you have been flying in this sim for a little while, so I would just advise a little more patience ... the 3PDs will sort it out eventually.  PTATC is now available to those who can afford it, and I believe it is vastly superior to default flight planning and ATC. Life is good mate

Tony 

  • Like 1

Tony Chilcott.

 

My System. Motherboard. ASRock Taichi X570 CPU Ryzen 9 3900x (not yet overclocked). RAM 32gb Corsair Vengeance (2x16) 3200mhz. 1 x Gigabyte Aorus GTX1080ti Extreme and a 1200watt PSU.

1 x 1tb SSD 3 x 240BG SSD and 4 x 2TB HDD

OS Win 10 Pro 64bit. Simulators ... FS2004/P3Dv4.5/Xplane.DCS/Aeroflyfs2...MSFS to come for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BusheFlyer said:

I don't understand your comment at all. You don't need any mods or any third party tools. Plan a flight from your local airport, fly it with the default real world weather and look out the window.

Lol, now I don't understand your comment at all. Even with the persistent bugs, I'm really enjoying MSFS. But look at my setup. I got tired of all the snafus with setting up my controllers so I installed FSUIPC 7 which solved that problem. I installed Little Navmap because the stock flightplanning is weak and and the stock VFR map is next to worthless.

Next I installed Navigraph because the default MSFS navigation database is full of errors. I bought REX WeatherForce because the live weather supplied by the sim doesn't match RL weather. I installed the IVAO AI aircraft package and converted my AIG schedules with AIFP. Why? Because the default AI traffic was so unrealistic.

I installed the G1000 mod because the stock G1000 was actually a G99.95. I'm toying with using Pilot2ATC (which I own) but for now the default ATC is close enough.

Having 3rd party replacements is a good thing. With them the base sim can be made to function as a viable flight simulator. That's nothing new. P3d5 has to be propped up in a similar manner. But don't ignore the obvious shortcomings of MSFS.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In the latest developer talk they discussed how they deliberately left some things very basic ( like the Garmin 1000, the weather, and some of the map features) and this was intentional to leave some headroom for after market developers to fill the gap, They wanted a healthy addon developer community and were trying to leave them stuff to do.

HOWEVER they went on to say (my words here) that so many people whined and complained about the lack of advanced features in the basic sim that they had to revise that decision and are now adding features they had originally intentionally left out.

Edited by Glenn Fitzpatrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Does Microsoft or Asobo do anything really well?

 

Yes, building an outstanding flight simulator. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

I am totally with you on this. This morning I set up a flight plan flying from Cairns to Townsville in the DA62. I set the flight height at 3500 in order to comply with direction of travel, civil GA requirements and to do some sight seeing. I am given ATC approval to take off and climb to 3500 (set on autopilot) and off I go. I get to 3500 feet and I am then told to climb to 4000ft so this not only does not comply with direction of flight (south = odd feet, GA travel (+500ft) it also negates all attempts to set a height in the navlog. 

Tony 

I know MSFS is not perfect. It was obviously modeled after older US ATC were controllers use to say   "taxi in position and hold" instead of "line up and wait". Still  as per  FAR 91.159 odd and even altitudes are for VFR causing altitudes above 3000 ft "unless otherwise authorized by ATC". ATC may assign any altitude whichever they see fit for their purpose disregarding what you filed in your flight plan. So unless pilot in distress or in rare instance aircraft performance cannot be achieved  ATC request (for example when heavy aircraft can't decelerate below 250kts per ATC request) pilot must comply; otherwise, it's a pilot deviation.

Technically speaking  Part 91 is not for GA as most people understand it as light aircraft. Private Boeing 747, which is hardly considered GA, may also be operated under part 91

Edited by sd_flyer

flight sim addict, airplane owner, CFI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft announces an October surprise. Business and game software will improve. Havic the Bothering will become Magic the Gathering. O wait, sorry, I was reading a 30 year old Microsoft press release. Sorry, never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BusheFlyer said:

I think you are looking at what it not working as opposed to what IS working. All the planes have ALL of the critical systems modelled in some form.. the fact that some things like cabin heat or the cigar lighter might be marked (in-op) is really of no consequence.

Yeah, all the problems are "of no consequence".

Go try to load an approach into the G1000 in flight, instead of loading it on the ground.  Totally broken.  In fact the FSX G1000 was more functional in terms of approaches.

Given that pretty much ever aircraft in the base sim is running Garmin glass, and that radio navigation beacons are being decommissioned worldwide in favor of GPS...the Garmin stuff needs to work without 3rd party mods.  It's not like FSX where  most of the aircraft had steam gauges.

If you can get the Garmin to work, the nav database is missing tons of approaches and full of old/out of date information.  Per people who actually fly, Navblue's data for real world use is full of errors/omissions as well, so this will probably never get fixed.

Many aircraft have multiple things broken about the systems.  Mixture levers that do nothing from rich-1% and only act as a 'cutoff'.  Completely incorrect cruise speed/range.  FADECs not modeled properly leading to incorrect engine/propeller performance.  Jets are terribly modeled to the point of not really being functional (2x real world fuel consumption).

There are major LOD and pop-in issues with scenery, textures, and photogrammatic buildings even on 'high-end' settings.  Great screenshots of areas below/behind your plane, melted buildings and low res textures looking out to the horizon in front.

Ghosts regularly enter your cockpit and flip switches in the cockpit.  I haven't had my avionics turn off, but I have had the mixture lever get yanked to full rich or full cutoff, and I often hear "switch click" noises when I am hands off the controls doing nothing.

The one thing it seems like they spent a lot of effort on was aircraft 3D models.  Those look great. 


AMD 3950X | 64GB RAM | AMD 5700XT | CH Fighterstick / Pro Throttle / Pro Pedals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

Yeah, all the problems are "of no consequence".

Go try to load an approach into the G1000 in flight, instead of loading it on the ground.  Totally broken.  In fact the FSX G1000 was more functional in terms of approaches.

Given that pretty much ever aircraft in the base sim is running Garmin glass, and that radio navigation beacons are being decommissioned worldwide in favor of GPS...the Garmin stuff needs to work without 3rd party mods.  It's not like FSX where  most of the aircraft had steam gauges.

If you can get the Garmin to work, the nav database is missing tons of approaches and full of old/out of date information.  Per people who actually fly, Navblue's data for real world use is full of errors/omissions as well, so this will probably never get fixed.

Many aircraft have multiple things broken about the systems.  Mixture levers that do nothing from rich-1% and only act as a 'cutoff'.  Completely incorrect cruise speed/range.  FADECs not modeled properly leading to incorrect engine/propeller performance.  Jets are terribly modeled to the point of not really being functional (2x real world fuel consumption).

There are major LOD and pop-in issues with scenery, textures, and photogrammatic buildings even on 'high-end' settings.  Great screenshots of areas below/behind your plane, melted buildings and low res textures looking out to the horizon in front.

Ghosts regularly enter your cockpit and flip switches in the cockpit.  I haven't had my avionics turn off, but I have had the mixture lever get yanked to full rich or full cutoff, and I often hear "switch click" noises when I am hands off the controls doing nothing.

The one thing it seems like they spent a lot of effort on was aircraft 3D models.  Those look great. 

It would be very welcome if Asobo fixes the base before spending a lot of time on additional scenery packages.

I still cannot fly the 787 normally. Hopefully that won’t take too long...,


Gerard

7940x ( 14 cores ) : 14 cores @ 4.7 - Gigabyte X299 Gaming 7 - 32 Gb G.Skill Trident Z 3200Mhz Cl 14 - Inno3D RTX3090 X4 iCHILL 24 Gb - 1x SSD M2 1800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Thermaltake Level 10 GT case - EKWB Extreme 240 liquid cooling set push/pull - 2x 43” Sony 4K tv's in NVSurround

8700K : all 6 cores @ 5.0 GHz - Asus ROG 370 - 16 Gb 4000 MHz @ 3600 Mhz - Inno3D RTX 3090 X3 iCHILL 24 Gb  - 1x SSD M2 1800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - 1x 55” Sony 4K tv

My flightsim vids :  https://www.youtube.com/user/fswidesim/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GSalden said:

It would be very welcome if Asobo fixes the base before spending a lot of time on additional scenery packages.

I still cannot fly the 787 normally. Hopefully that won’t take too long...,

yep  i agree  nothing  wrong  with the  scenery  but  the  aircraft is  another  matter  all together


I7-800k,Corsair h1101 cooler ,Asus Strix Gaming Intel Z370 S11 motherboard, Corsair 32gb ramDD4,    2  ssd 500gb 970 drive, gtx 1080ti Card,  RM850 power supply

 

Peter kelberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GSalden said:

It would be very welcome if Asobo fixes the base before spending a lot of time on additional scenery packages.

I still cannot fly the 787 normally. Hopefully that won’t take too long...,

So your suggestion is they sack the developers doing scenery and use the money to hire people with flight model experience then once the aircraft are fixed sack the new guys and rehire the scenery guys to carry on with the scenery updates?

You do realise they are totally different skill sets. It is sort of like saying to a restaurant owner "hey all those expensive chefs working on the new menu for the xmas period, get them laying new carpet in the foyer instead, because that is more important".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Lol, now I don't understand your comment at all. Even with the persistent bugs, I'm really enjoying MSFS. But look at my setup. I got tired of all the snafus with setting up my controllers so I installed FSUIPC 7 which solved that problem. I installed Little Navmap because the stock flightplanning is weak and and the stock VFR map is next to worthless.

Next I installed Navigraph because the default MSFS navigation database is full of errors. I bought REX WeatherForce because the live weather supplied by the sim doesn't match RL weather. I installed the IVAO AI aircraft package and converted my AIG schedules with AIFP. Why? Because the default AI traffic was so unrealistic.

I installed the G1000 mod because the stock G1000 was actually a G99.95. I'm toying with using Pilot2ATC (which I own) but for now the default ATC is close enough.

Having 3rd party replacements is a good thing. With them the base sim can be made to function as a viable flight simulator. That's nothing new. P3d5 has to be propped up in a similar manner. But don't ignore the obvious shortcomings of MSFS.

If it can be improved then sure.. but the flight planner works to do basic stuff. Personally I just use a sectional map because I am used to it (and probably a bit old fashioned), if IFR then JeppView for the plates and I am fine. Real world weather is superb and is working most of the time, the metar injection method is a huge step backwards IMHO. Metars are only accurate for the moment that it is taken and even then different stations will report inconstant cloud bases, there is nothing dynamic about that. What about weather over oceans?

I agree the G1000 is limited..

There are some shortcomings which I am sure will be addressed, I am just puzzled however why some people think so much is wrong that they ignore all the good things. They say they can't do this and they can't do that.. that is just nonsense.. what they really mean is they can't automate this and they can't automate that. They have either forgotten how to fly or are so used to the ever increasing automation that they can no longer do without it.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

<snip> Whining and complaining </snip>

Very well, sounds like it is not for you. Probably best to forget the whole experience and try something else, after all, it wouldn't make any sense to spend your free time doing something you dislike so much.

Edited by BusheFlyer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I gotta laugh, when I read statements like "totally broken", etc.

The sim is in a default state, out 6 weeks. MSFS exactly met my expectations. That is so, because my expectations were calibrated to what one can reasonable expect from a first release.

In fact, MSFS exceeded my expectations. It performs much better than I had expected, making me think that I can hold on to my old PC a while longer (I'm kind of a miser, and tend to replace things when they are actually broken rather than because some random internet person tells me that I absolutely need to run MSFS at 60 fps at 900k, and therefore I need to spend $5.999999999 on 7 different kinds videocards).

Edited by Ricardo41
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    33%
    $8,485.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...