43 minutes ago, FlyingInACessna said:

This is my biggest issue, along with fake taxiway names. Both broken systems contribute to difficulty on VATSIM (and therefore difficulty with realism).

I can always deduce the name of the taxiway by using navigraph charts, but its much more difficult on a busy freqency to get a clearance that your plane is just not capable of following. 

55 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

And what exactly is the definition of a "hard core simmer"?

For a "hard core" GA pilot who primarily flies VFR, then the out of the window view is paramount.  They want every single physical thing in the real world accurately modelled because it is used as a reference.   That power line, that church steeple, those marinas.  Anything that helps a VFR pilot navigate.  Does this "hard core" GA pilot care much about SIDS and STARS?  For some, doing a virtual walk around their plane is more important than anything that might exist on an FMC of a jetliner they have no interest in flying.  And when flying IFR do these folks really care if there is a missing RNAV approach as long as there is an ILS approach available?  I don't know.  I'm not a real pilot.  But judging from what I've read, a complete and accurate database of SIDS and STARS for every airport modelled is not a high priority to some, and critical to others.

For IFR, it is a different story.  In instrument flight rules, the fidelity of instrumentation is paramount,  Proper working of all navigational and avionics instrumentation is key.  In IFR, the cockpit window is merely "the view".  Yes, over simplified, but you get my drift.  Accurate checklist, realistic depiction of ALL instrumentation, not just that critical for flight.  All these are priorities that a VFR pilot might not be too concerned about.  

In the past, we've been "forced" to focus on IFR simulation because our computer equipment and storage mediums were not equipped to simulate VFR conditions adequately enough.  

That has changed.

Yes, "hard core simmer" is an easy term to banter around, but a clear look at what people deem important even in this forum of "hard core simmers" shows that the definition of "hard core simmer" isn't even easily defined.  And if we can't define ourselves, how do we expect a company to?

 

Are you telling me that the world of simmers has mostly been VFR the last decade? No, I think not. I'm not saying that they didnt exist, but MSF even says it is the first time you are able to fully fly VFR with THIS iteration of MSF. And VFR is something that MSF is really strong on right now, but I dont think people would be cheering back when MSF was first announced if they said "made for simmers with a VFR focus". With Vatsim as their partner, how many MSF pilots are flying VFR on vatsim? Historically, the number has been VERY small compared to IFR pilots. 

Edited October 23, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

1 minute ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

Are you telling me that the world of simmers has mostly been VFR the last decade? No, I think not. I'm not saying that they didnt exist, but MSF even says it is the first time you are able to fully fly VFR with THIS iteration of MSF. And VFR is something that MSF is really strong on right now, but I dont think people would be cheering back when MSF was first announced if they said "made for simmers with a VFR focus". 

That's not what I said at all.  
 

"In the past, we've been "forced" to focus on IFR simulation because our computer equipment and storage mediums were not equipped to simulate VFR conditions adequately enough."

Every iteration of MSFS has primarily focused on IFR due to restrictions in hardware.  Heck, in FS 2.0, you had to ride the VOR down to Champlain IL from Chicago, if you had any hope of landing there, as there was nothing but a sea of green for miles.  

I remember feeling that "relief" when I started seeing the "terrain" details pop into Champlain, feeling satisfaction that I had successfully navigated there.  Not unlike that feeling of relief coming out of low cloud cover to see the airport laid out nice and tidy ahead of you.

Since we've been forced to deal with IFR for most of our simming, we tend to neglect VFR and write it off as either eye candy or "not serious".  

MSFS is a different animal than we've seen.  Maybe it's time we step back and accept it for what it is, instead of trying to shoehorn it into what we expect.  

Aren't there already plenty of simulators that will give us the "airliner" experience should we choose?  

For the first time we have what might be called a true VFR simulation engine, and we're moaning and groaning about IFR.  

I don't know, maybe it's our own expectations that need some adjustment as well.  

Not saying that bugs don't need to be fixed.  But perhaps we need to re-evaluate what we're dealing with here, and not be so quick to dismiss the VFR experience as mere "eye candy".

6 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

That's not what I said at all.  
 

"In the past, we've been "forced" to focus on IFR simulation because our computer equipment and storage mediums were not equipped to simulate VFR conditions adequately enough."

Every iteration of MSFS has primarily focused on IFR due to restrictions in hardware.  Heck, in FS 2.0, you had to ride the VOR down to Champlain IL from Chicago, if you had any hope of landing there, as there was nothing but a sea of green for miles.  

I remember feeling that "relief" when I started seeing the "terrain" details pop into Champlain, feeling satisfaction that I had successfully navigated there.  Not unlike that feeling of relief coming out of low cloud cover to see the airport laid out nice and tidy ahead of you.

Since we've been forced to deal with IFR for most of our simming, we tend to neglect VFR and write it off as either eye candy or "not serious".  

MSFS is a different animal than we've seen.  Maybe it's time we step back and accept it for what it is, instead of trying to shoehorn it into what we expect.  

Aren't there already plenty of simulators that will give us the "airliner" experience should we choose?  

For the first time we have what might be called a true VFR simulation engine, and we're moaning and groaning about IFR.  

I don't know, maybe it's our own expectations that need some adjustment as well.  

Not saying that bugs don't need to be fixed.  But perhaps we need to re-evaluate what we're dealing with here, and not be so quick to dismiss the VFR experience as mere "eye candy".

So, tell me, what part of my OP made you want to post this? Should I just sit still in the boat and let you enjoy your VFR while my IFR is ruined? If your point is just the semantics of what is "hard core", then I suggest you post something about it in a school forum. It doesnt contribute anything except more delay on fixing IFR. We can have Asobo fix it without ruining VFR you know. It is not like they have to downgrade the world fidelity to implement proper IFR. 

Edited October 23, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

18 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

Historically, the number has been VERY small compared to IFR pilots.

That might be explained by the fact it was not very practical before MSFS.

Just now, airlinejets said:

That might be explained by the fact it was not very practical before MSFS.

And you are derailing this tread. It is not the point. 

1 minute ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

So, tell me, what part of my OP made you want to post this? Should I just sit still in the boat and let you enjoy your VFR while my IFR is ruined?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

There are at least 2 mature flight simulator products currently available that excel in IFR and have an entire community around them.  It's not as if your IFR is "ruined" when you have two entirely acceptable methods to simulate it.

Pro Pilot 99, Flight Unlimited 2, Microsoft Flight.  Those were at least 3 products in the last several decades that tried to focus on VFR and were pilloried by the "hard core" community.  Those products vanished.  

So tell me, should I just sit still and allow the "hardcore" sim community 86 another VFR flight experience because it is too "gamey" for them or only exists for "eye candy"?

Let's get off our high horse a bit, shall we?

Cheers.

 

Excuse me, @wthomas33065, you are the one coming in here telling me to bugger off to a different sim if I dont like the IFR in MSF. You should at least have your horse wipe its feet on the front door before riding in here. 

I dont understand why you need to write your posts to the contrary. Do you WANT the IFR to be bugged? Do you WANT the Airbus and Boeings to be complete word not allowed to land, even by professional pilots? Egotistical, much? Did I ever say that I want VFR to suffer? Nope, just like you, that is the way I enjoy MSF. Because it is the best thing ever happened next to sliced bread when it comes to VFR. But it is GARBAGE for IFR flights on anything similar to realistic conditions (ie. on vatsim). 

Edited October 23, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

1 minute ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

Excuse me, @wthomas33065, you are the one coming in here telling me to bugger off to a different sim if I dont like the IFR in MSF. You should at least have your horse wipe its feet on the front door before riding in here. 

And you were the one who twisted my words trying to say you should "bugger off".  I didn't say that at all.  I asked if you submitted a bug report, and you did.  I even agreed with you when I saw, what were mainly cosmetic niceties such as hit any key and trains seemed to get more attention than your issues.

It was only when you started talking about your "ruined" IFR experience that I suggested you find solace in a product that doesn't "ruin" your fun.

We all acknowledge that there are bugs and they need fixing.  What I fail to agree with is that MS or ASOBO for that matter has any obligation to fix the things that "hard core" simmers demand.  

Exactly what percentage of people who tool around in MSFS even USE Vatsim.  I don't.  Never did.  So why exactly is MS or ASOBO obliged to prioritize that over something else.  

Take a chill pill.  It took over 2 years for PMDG to create a study level product for FSX and the community seems to completely forget that.  Or the fact that FSX had two patches during it's entire release cycle.   

Is it too much to ask of this community to stop stamping it's feet and having a temper tantrum because your "precious" bug de jour hasn't been addressed within 8 weeks of release?  

Get over yourself.

@wthomas33065Ok thank you for your input. I dont know what it is you contributed other than feeling I am putting words in your mouth. Communication goes both ways, and you cant demand that I shall perceive them the same way you imagined it in your head. 

Asobo are not obligated by any of my wishes whatsoever. They say they read these forums. Now they will see my post, and yours as well, and have the impression that we are divided and we dont all feel strongly about having this fixed. Thank you for your contribution. Very long sighted. 

Edited October 23, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

Maybe you take this offline or at least stop quoting your page long communication at full length?

4 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

Now they will see my post, and yours as well, and have the impression that we are divided and we dont all feel strongly about having this fixed.

Yep, our exchange has single handedly changed corporate policy at Microsoft and Asobo..(sarcasm) What part of get over yourself did you not understand.

Ok.  I'm done with you...and this thread.

Well, with him gone from this thread, maybe we can get somewhere. Where he and I obviously disagree is at what detail level Asobo is paying attention to the community. I believe that they are quite granular in their observation of this forum, and I do think there is a point in bringing these things to light. It isnt "corporate policy" over at Asobo or MS to have a poor IFR implementation. They are innundated with feedback, many from gamers (ie, not simmers), and by posting here I am hoping to reach over the crowd at MSF forums. 

49 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

Well, with him gone from this thread, maybe we can get somewhere. Where he and I obviously disagree is at what detail level Asobo is paying attention to the community. I believe that they are quite granular in their observation of this forum, and I do think there is a point in bringing these things to light. It isnt "corporate policy" over at Asobo or MS to have a poor IFR implementation. They are innundated with feedback, many from gamers (ie, not simmers), and by posting here I am hoping to reach over the crowd at MSF forums. 

You might be surprised.  Asobo have been known to quote directly from these forum posts.

As for the rest, I feel bad that you had to go through that, but that's how it is here now.

Thank you so much for saying that, @Mace! ❤️