I've managed to learn to fly the A320 Neo and the 787 Dreamliner for the most part and enjoy these 2 aircrafts... It may not fly like the PMDG Paywares, but its ok for now until the payware version are published. 

I am yet to learn the quirks of the 747. 

Aerosoft is working on their CRJ. Not sure if I want to learn the CRJ... but if they come out of the gates first, then I may have to invest in learning the CRJ.

Edited November 8, 20205 yr by Manny

22 hours ago, icewater5 said:

I do wonder to what extent is it bad coding, given that they are presumably aware that free and payware developers

have picked up the slack in the past.

 

Not judging the default airliners BTW. Not used it yet and there do seem to be workaround

options in many cases.

Having 0 experience with coding ad a caveat, my hunch is it’s all coding.  In FSX I flew a payware A320( can’t remember the company) for probably 5 or more years almost every flight.  I’m well aware of how to fly the 320 and this one in MSFS is not implemented well.  The worst part— they are basically not improving it at all with the updates.

On 11/8/2020 at 10:10 AM, jcomm said:

There's always an option, even if a bit expensive:

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIZvkp8p5yUI6NgJm0romUg/videos

Nice one , thanks 

Testing Prosim myself 

10 hours ago, Manny said:

I've managed to learn to fly the A320 Neo and the 787 Dreamliner for the most part and enjoy these 2 aircrafts... It may not fly like the PMDG Paywares, but its ok for now until the payware version are published. 

I am yet to learn the quirks of the 747. 

Aerosoft is working on their CRJ. Not sure if I want to learn the CRJ... but if they come out of the gates first, then I may have to invest in learning the CRJ.

I like to see the vids of Cpt Canada that are being streamed live multiple times per week. Also viewable later.

His favorite ac is the 787. Take off and the first 10 min of climbing manually as also the approach and landing manually..

 

On 11/7/2020 at 10:52 AM, DaveCT2003 said:

The default A320 is being improved as freeware almost every week, but that said the airliners that Asobo provides are never likely to have any improvements except what some awesome people such as awesome and incredible people like FlyByWire create.  For increased fidelity or steam gauges you will very likely have to go down the road towards a payware alternative.

It's a good idea tc continue to post your wants so that those who create such software have a feel for what people are looking for.

Best wishes!

For the lack of anything else for now I've decided to learn enough on the A320 to get by. The 747 is bigger than I want, and the 787 a bit too big and very buggy on my system, usually developing a mind of its own diving off course and into the ground. The Airbus logic is different than what I'm used to, but it is a nice size and so far it has flown very well with no major bugs showing up.

On 11/7/2020 at 9:07 AM, desbean said:

Besides the known bugs, the default airliners in MSFS are way more complicated than the default ones in FSX, which you could learn very quickly jump in and fly without fooling around with. But they are not nearly as detailed as "study level" planes. For me personally I would love to have an analog 737.

You know if I had answered a week ago I would have said you were nuts why wouldn't we want more realistic airliners.  But my wife just started this week in MSFS and of course she does the tutorial flies around in the Cessna and the next thing she wants to do is fly an A320 into a tough airfield in Alaska.  A short while later I hear a lot of cursing.  And I think you have a bit of a point.  In FSX the airliners you could simply treat as basically "fast" Cessna and didn't need to worry about complex AP systems or anything it just worked all the same way across the board more or less.  In MSFS they have a fair bit of depth but no materials or guidance on any of it so trying to figure out and then explain to my wife why the A320 despite her efforts at following the same process as her little Cessna decides on its own that it oughta keep going 250 knots on landing.  About 3 tries of that and she is ready to toss the game out the window.  So for the study sim enthusiasts its not deep enough and for the new flyers its too hard.  And while in theory a middle ground sounds like a good blend without the documentation or tutorials to help there is some frustrations there I think and lessons to be learned.

On 11/10/2020 at 2:39 AM, desbean said:

For the lack of anything else for now I've decided to learn enough on the A320 to get by. The 747 is bigger than I want, and the 787 a bit too big and very buggy on my system, usually developing a mind of its own diving off course and into the ground. The Airbus logic is different than what I'm used to, but it is a nice size and so far it has flown very well with no major bugs showing up.

Personally my go to "larger" planes in other sims have usually been Dash 8's, Norman Islanders, Twin Otters or even old school stuff like Fokker Friendships and DC3s.

I have never personally seen the appeal in complex ops on big airliners as a type of "fun" (rather than just your day job)  but each to their own, I concede many people do love the big stuff.

My hunch is the apparent popularity of study level airline aircraft is an artefact of the way most existing flight simulators are god d@mn awful at everything else so, by a warped form of natural selection, the hobby has ended up full of people that actually like what the recent crop of flight sims are good at - complex system and procedure simulation. More power to them I suppose but MSFS seems to be aimed at a much much broader market.

 

Edited November 12, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

16 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

.....More power to them I suppose but MSFS seems to be aimed at a much much broader market.

That's why I don't understand how come not an FSX-like simpler airliner in MSFS for the "broader market" they are going for now.

 

16 hours ago, pjs37 said:

.....So for the study sim enthusiasts its not deep enough and for the new flyers its too hard.  And while in theory a middle ground sounds like a good blend without the documentation or tutorials to help there is some frustrations there I think and lessons to be learned.

No documentation is correct. People in the forums will tell you about "lots of YouTube tutorials" but I have found that they tend to concentrate on small areas, and skip over and take for granted many details that you need to really get a full understanding.

5 hours ago, desbean said:

No documentation is correct. People in the forums will tell you about "lots of YouTube tutorials" but I have found that they tend to concentrate on small areas, and skip over and take for granted many details that you need to really get a full understanding.

While I appreciate the work the YouTubers are doing its like you said hard to follow or too laser focused like...where do you tell a new person to start?  It will be an interesting journey and she will want to learn and I do as well so I guess we will learn together.  But its still a bit directionless.

I am happy to report that my most recent flight, I had no wing drop or unexplained stall when landing!  Huge improvement.  At least the 320 is flyable for me!  I did have 2 unexplained over speed callouts where I was no where near over speed and the gear and flaps were up but that’s fine in my eyes!