1 hour ago, B777ER said:

Just wait until it's released on Xbox and they start listening and adjusting the sim to that crowd. Realism = RIP.

So your PC makes you smarter than them? The 1 millions copies were solely sold to Avsim users? 

We are already the minority here. 

2 hours ago, Msfs2020zorro said:

Hope they will soon beg real patriotic american engineers to save them.

Wow! ‘Merica much?!?!? 😳

9 hours ago, mikegrr said:

Just a few weeks ago folks were complaining about excessive oscillations of the AP. So they tried to reduce that and errored the other way and dampened the response. Can’t win I guess. 
 

The oscillations are not really connected with how slowly or quickly the a/p turns aircraft in heading mode. They are an independent issue, mostly related to other factors within the flight modelling of individual aircraft. 

2 hours ago, leprechaunlive said:

So your PC makes you smarter than them? The 1 millions copies were solely sold to Avsim users? 

We are already the minority here. 

Anyone ever accuse you of reading into things too much? Where did I mention or infer intelligence as a factor? Anyone reading it could surely surmise that once out on Xbox, hundred of thousands will be flying with Xbox controllers without a clue as to how a aircraft is supposed to behave and then flood Asobo/MS with comments to fix whatever it is they perceive to be wrong. The "noob" factor vs. experienced simmers will be so far out of balance that it may never recover. 

12 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

I also think the autopilot has actually  been improved...  😉

Yes, it needs to be dialed in to be a bit more aggressive, but before it was too violent and occasionally even fatal..  I like it better now..

You must not fly the A320. It is now both violent and occasionally fatal on after takeoff turns and utterly unresponsive at other times. 

3 hours ago, B777ER said:

Anyone ever accuse you of reading into things too much? Where did I mention or infer intelligence as a factor? Anyone reading it could surely surmise that once out on Xbox, hundred of thousands will be flying with Xbox controllers without a clue as to how a aircraft is supposed to behave and then flood Asobo/MS with comments to fix whatever it is they perceive to be wrong. The "noob" factor vs. experienced simmers will be so far out of balance that it may never recover. 

I think the ratio is already in their favor. And by the way, been flying for more than 10 years, and i use the XBOX controller. First because i couldnt be bothered to dig out my joystick from the garage, and second, it actually work surprisingly well. 😄

On 11/26/2020 at 9:11 PM, robert young said:

Frankly, Asobo could re-implement the standard FSX autopilot coding and it would be five times better than this

I guess Asobo is locked away from direct feedback from folks w/ your level of expertise and developer acumen.  Seems nearly pointless to expound over and over here when what really could make a difference is getting a sympathetic ear from the people who matter.  How can we get the ear of whomever is involved in the Autopilot portion of the sim?  Somebody somewhere knows who this person is, and they have an email address!

 

3 minutes ago, Noel said:

I guess Asobo is locked away from direct feedback from folks w/ your level of expertise and developer acumen.  

 

I think the fact that they prioritise stuff based on what gets the most "votes" makes that pretty obvious.

It is not a good way of doing things you end up with no quality and building for the lowest common denominator.

2 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I think the fact that they prioritise stuff based on what gets the most "votes" makes that pretty obvious.

Not really.  A most effective approach would be to seek data from both end users to find out what matters to them as they are your customer, and also from people who have expertise in whatever area you're looking at.  To exclude either is a mistake ultimately.

On 11/26/2020 at 9:11 PM, robert young said:

As we go past three months from release, that is becoming a misconception. The initial "surge" of approval was confined to pilots who had youtube channels hungry for subscribers and the deal was "we'll give you an advanced copy and in return you say absolutely nothing critical". I have to say I have a fair amount of contempt for many of those youtubers who became willing victims of PR. I get that they attracted lots more subscribers and could fly around in a new sim for a while. But there were a couple of well-known commercial pilots who could quite clearly see glaring shortcomings in the way aircraft were flying and said absolutely nothing about it.

There were a few pilots of varying experience who popped up here now and again to say how wonderful the sim is/was, but gradually they have been eclipsed by others who are now in a large majority. It's fair enough to want this sim to be successful and of course it does have some remarkably good features. But it is a simulation of FLIGHT above all (it's in the name!) and I think the consensus has entirely reversed since the early days.

It's perfectly understandable to have a few cock ups on the way. None of us can escape that. But this is now becoming a repeated theme of sheer incompetence followed by multiple updates that create more issues than they solve. This autopilot update is a classic case. The Asobo staff member declared it was "an improvement" because it solved the problem of sim pilots who were doing quite bizarre things in the first place. Whereas a competent pilot who simply wants the a/p to capture an elementary, bog standard turn now cannot do so. It beggars belief that anyone could suppose that this update is anything but sticky plaster.

Frankly, Asobo could re-implement the standard FSX autopilot coding and it would be five times better than this. I've just flown a standard 60 degree heading change under a/p in a default aircraft and barely one second after the initial bank was completed, it started banking back to level again FIFTY DEGREES before the selected heading! This is utterly ridiculous, and the person who implemented it needs their head examining. It indicates just how removed from any basic understanding of how aircraft operate it is possible to be - and it wasn't an inadvertent mistake - it was actually decided that it was "an improvement".

 

Have you taken some of this angst and written the CEO and mailed the project managers a sincere letter explaining this perspective?  

Posted a couple days ago, I had read it which is why I mentioned what I did:

"I’ve been simming since the 1980s, and get the frustration, but this is a representation of the entire world, and the 80/20 rule applies. 80% of things are spectacular, but 80% of the negative focus is on the 20% that needs work. Tarawa? Really?

I’m an instrument rated pilot and I can tell you that for $120US, this sim is amazing. I’ve logged hours on FAA approved simulators that couldn’t hold a candle to this one (and cost more to use for an hour than this one to buy).

I think back to what FS8 and FS9 were like when they first came out, and worrying about the correct species of tree just seems a bit over the top, but that’s just me."

3 hours ago, B777ER said:

Anyone ever accuse you of reading into things too much? Where did I mention or infer intelligence as a factor? Anyone reading it could surely surmise that once out on Xbox, hundred of thousands will be flying with Xbox controllers without a clue as to how a aircraft is supposed to behave and then flood Asobo/MS with comments to fix whatever it is they perceive to be wrong. The "noob" factor vs. experienced simmers will be so far out of balance that it may never recover. 

And one wonders why "simmers" get such a bad name.  MSFS has always tried to walk the line between being accessible to the layman but being detailed enough for the more serious sim pilot.  

That is one of the reasons they continued to make the product so open to third party development. 

There are currently at least two simulation products that cater to the hard core simmer.  So would it be so terrible if MSFS stayed more focused for the casual to mid level simmer?  Would it not open the door for more people to enjoy flight simulation and eventually find the more complex sims, for those who want more?

I spent 10.5 years on submarines and I tell you there has been one submarine simulator that I considered close to "authentic" and that was Fast Attack.  And quite frankly it was pretty boring, not to mention it had some unrealistic time restraints for mission success.

My most enjoyable sub sim, was Red Storm Rising, not because it was the most realistic, it wasn't by a long shot, but it did the best of distilling submarine combat while maintaining a fun factor.   Properly tracking and prosecuting a target can take hours, and while others were more realistic, they either required the player to keep to many plates spinning, or they simply got too detailed for their own good.

Plotting bearing lines and using speed strips isn't for everyone.

So why do we require all of our flight simulation software to be 100% accurate.  I know I have no interest in a study level aircraft.  I simply don't want to spend hours learning all the different advanced functions of a jet airliner, and that should be ok.

This attitude that "noobs" will ruin MSFS for the hard core sim market is a case of cutting's one's nose off to spite their face.  Flight Simulation went from being a major category of "entertainment" or "edutainment" software in the 80's and 90's to being almost extinct in the mid 2000's.  

Do we really want to go back there?  The hardcore simmer already killed MSFlight, and now seems to want to do the same with MSFS.  I really don't know why they would want to do that.  

We should really welcome any attempt to open up our hobby to a wider audience instead of closing our doors and keeping out the "unwashed heathen".

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but General Aviation is dying.  Commercial aviation keeps getting less expensive while learning to fly and owning your own aircraft is getting prohibitively expensive.  

Introducing individuals to the joy of piloting their own aircraft just might help stave off the death of General Aviation for a little bit longer.

 

Edited November 28, 20205 yr by wthomas33065

2 minutes ago, Noel said:

I’m an instrument rated pilot and I can tell you that for $120US, this sim is amazing. I’ve logged hours on FAA approved simulators that couldn’t hold a candle to this one

Obviously not using a Garmin G1000 or Honeywell FMC based system!!

Edited November 28, 20205 yr by Adrian123

26 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

And one wonders why "simmers" get such a bad name.  MSFS has always tried to walk the line between being accessible to the layman but being detailed enough for the more serious sim pilot.  


 

Probably an impossible line to be honest.

There are already apparently complaints elsewhere that the airliners are "too hard" for new players to learn.

50 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

And one wonders why "simmers" get such a bad name.  MSFS has always tried to walk the line between being accessible to the layman but being detailed enough for the more serious sim pilot.  
There are currently at least two simulation products that cater to the hard core simmer.  So would it be so terrible if MSFS stayed more focused for the casual to mid level simmer?  
We should really welcome any attempt to open up our hobby to a wider audience instead of closing our doors and keeping out the "unwashed heathen".

 

I'm not sure where to start, but your points assume right from the start that somehow simulators are "difficult" if they are approaching accuracy, or that somehow an accurate simulator is only useable by advanced pilots. The polar opposite is true. A sim aircraft that flies well is EASY for everyone to fly. An autopilot that arrives at a heading when you tell it to do so is not something for "hard core" sim pilots, but for everyone. Just as a car driving sim is right for everyone if it turns in the right way when you move the steering wheel.

I think you have a misconception that simulators are only valid for an inexperienced person if they are dumbed down. Again, the opposite is true. A sim that doesn't respond properly is bad for everyone. A sim that approaches the feel and behaviour of a real aircraft is good for everyone.

If I can extend to another analogy, it would be like saying a piano that is in tune and sounds wonderful is only appropriate for advanced players.

The procedural part of sims (flight management computers, advanced avionics and so on) are already presented as an option for all simmers. You can go through a switch by switch start up and shutdown, or you can press CTR E and it will start automatically. If you want to hand fly, or just use heading and climb autopilot and avoid the FMC you can do so. Just because advanced features are there doesn't mean you are forced to use them!

Every single addon and default aircraft I know of will do this. As far as I recall, all PMDG aircraft offer this. ALL of our RealAir aircraft offered this. All the Aerosoft Airbuses offer it, and even the FlyByWire team's a320 offers easy start up and management, though I concede the autopilot does take a bit of learning.

A well designed simulator IS accessible to the layman, because it responds in a believable way. Flying basic controls is EASY. You move the stick left and the aircraft rolls left. You pull and it climbs. You push and it descends. It doesn't need to be dumbed down. I think you are confusing procedural and navigational challenges with basic flying, which any decent simulator should offer whether you are a beginner or a pro-pilot.

 

 

Edited November 28, 20205 yr by robert young

The majority of the MSFS user will be an X Box gamer who likes to fly VFR while looking down and enjoying all eyecandy.

Not the few who want every knob/switch, system to work as in the real ac. 
Just choose an ac and take off.

So more eyecandy attracts people more than having working bleedair switches ...

The AP is now good for all those general users....