I don’t know about all of the other models, but the 152 and 172 have some of the most convincing flight characteristics I have seen across any home flight sim to date. And as a CFI I spend a lot of time in 172s especially. It’s not perfect, but pretty darn good default airplane or not. I’d even put it against the A2A 172 in flight model.

13 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

It seems like there are people actually have an opinion on what i asked. So if you are not interested why do you even bother to comment?

The comment was because we get at least one of these posts nearly every day, and we're kinda, you know, tired of it.

 

Out of curiosity, exactly what is your post saying better than its predecessors? 😉

 

4 hours ago, Steve Dra said:

True!  And in the world of where most statements are relative, "niche" has its relativity as well.

In our "niche"....the initials PMDG, FSL, FSDT, FB, F1, AS, REX, ASN, A2A, BBS, @RXP....all have a meaning we clearly understand.  Say them outside our niche, you'll be greeted with puzzled looks as the person tries to associate the initials in their world.  And insofar as we're a micro-niche within a niche...not every "simmer" could rattle off the full names of those companies, much less give a detailed history of what they do and their significance in the hobby.

Then, outside of that niche, most likely only those who are spouses or really good friends of "hard core" simmers have ever heard those initials in relation to flight simulation...even "hard core" gamers who understand the initials  GTA, COD, PVP, GG, FTW, PUG, Smurf, LFG...ad infinitium... don't have a clue of our niche and micro-niche. 🙂 

Its pretty crazy when you think about it. 😉

 

My wife never heard of PMDG i can tell you that 😄

14 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

What a loaded question.  The scenery can and should never be exluded from the conversation.  It is the basis for VFR flight.  The "eye candy" you refer to is what gives the simmer the suspension of disbelief.  The more "real" the outside feels, the more authentic the experience. So to exclude that rather "inconvenient" part out of the discussion is intellectually dishonest.

I disagree. Some people seem to be responding as if the OP has outright dismissed the new Microsoft Flight Simulator as worthless. He did not say that. He has asked a reasonable question, and deserves reasonable answers. He has already stated that he left the scenery out of the discussion because he knows that it is the best. However, contrary to what some people seem to believe (and dare I say it.....did not believe before Microsoft Flight Simulator was released), a flight simulator is more than just spectacular world scenery (yes, even for someone like me who enjoys looking at the scenery whilst conducting low level VFR flights in complex airliners). If many of the other elements of the product are lacking as far as flight simulation is concerned, then this thread is completely justified.

Edited November 28, 20205 yr by Christopher Low

16 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

First, this isn't meant to be a rant or an "i'm heading back to P3D" post but i was just wondering...

Going through all of these "Issue/Problems" posts in the forum(s) i honestly ask myself what, and i am leaving aaaaall that eyecandy which is pretty much obviously the biggest improvement, aside.

Ok the UI got modernised...the marketplace...but whats up with the rest?

With every update we get more eyecandy (world updates) sometimes less (night lighting) and personally i have a feeling that the Devs are eagerly overcompensating every issue we have/had with the flight models etc. Whole groups of clouds are missing and so on so on...

I am really ok with the state the sim is right now. Some bugs are annoying, some are not. But month after release i am still waiting for the "Simulator" i have paid 120 bucks for.

 

So what do you guys think is the biggest improvement over FSX/P3d EXCEPT the graphics?

 

Best

 

14 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

The fact that many people refuse (or are unable) to name something that is done really great by MSFS except the Graphics ...leads me to the conclusion that there isn't quite much...

 

12 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

So many people are saying this.  They say it over and over as if that will make it true, but where is there any evidence that Asobo is just around the corner from "getting it right"?  Don't recent "updates" point in exactly the opposite direction.  No real progress in any area seems to have been made since release.  These devs seem to lack fundamental aeronautical knowledge and the ability to correctly analyze what is wrong from a programming standpoint. 

They keep setting themselves arbitrary dates in the future when this problem or that one will be solved.  Then, having failed to solve them, they go ahead and push the patch anyway regardless of the effect it has on existing "features"

It's just my opinion but blind faith in people with this kind of record is astounding--and to see so much of it.  I'm just wondering where it comes from.  In any case I don't see how it helps the community.

It seems to me that all efforts and resources should be spent on completing the SDK so that developers who know what they're doing (and there are many) can make real contributions to the usability of this sim.

 

41 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I disagree. Some people seem to be responding as if the OP has outright dismissed the new Microsoft Flight Simulator as worthless. He did not say that. He has asked a reasonable question, and deserves reasonable answers. He has already stated that he left the scenery out of the discussion because he knows that it is the best. However, contrary to what some people seem to believe (and dare I say it.....did not believe before Microsoft Flight Simulator was released), a flight simulator is more than just spectacular world scenery (yes, even for someone like me who enjoys looking at the scenery whilst conducting low level VFR flights in complex airliners). If many of the other elements of the product are lacking as far as flight simulation is concerned, then this thread is completely justified.

Yes, some of his responses in this thread have a whiff of objectivity, but if you read the above statements, it speaks to what I think he is really trying to get across.

Someone else in this thread spoke of this product being able to portray "the magic of flight".  And they hit it on the head.  And a lot of people who bury their heads in instrumentation don't appreciate that.  And so when they dismiss the out the window view as mere eye candy, or state that MSFS doesn't do much better than render better scenery, it sounds very condescending.

The main reason as simmers we had to "settle" for detailed cockpits and study level advanced aircraft is that most flight simulators couldn't adequately model a 152 to make it interesting to fly.  

Computers just were not powerful enough to make VFR compelling.  Microsoft, has for the first time made it compelling.  The combination of highly detailed virtual cockpits, with realistic lighting, shadows, and atmospheric effects makes MSFS portray the actual feeling of flying better than anything thus far.

Remember, the OP never stated how nice VFR was or even how much it felt like flying until he was called out on it by others in this thread.  

Reread his original post and tell me that was originally meant to be objective.  Or that he wasn't being dismissive of the ONE thing that MSFS blows everything out of the water with.  

A lot of people who come here and attack the flight model, or the fact that the avionics suite isn't 100% up to snuff, use all of that to claim that MSFS is "merely a game" and somehow not worthy of being a flight simulator.  

But then, what is it if it simulates the feeling of flying better than anything else around? 

The OP objects to any criticism of his remarks and has stated numerous times that he was simply asking for feedback, but numerous comments appear to contradict that statement, and his continued protests to the contrary reminds me of the line in Hamlet.  "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Perhaps I read him wrong, but If I did, I'm not the only one.

 

6 hours ago, Sigwolf said:

Anyone that has actually flown a plane, or flown *in* a plane would not ask this question.  It presents the entire globe in more detail than any default sim has ever achieved, by an order of magnitude.  It has a ton of faults, but there is a lot of hope these will be corrected.  I hold a commercial, instrument, multi-engine license, and am a former flight instructor and retired air traffic controller.  I am frustrated beyond belief by the limitations on proper IFR flight in this sim, but never questioned for a second what it brings to the table.  It is an exceptional VFR sim right now, and brings the promise of so much more, through the work of so many people, including, and well beyond Asobo.  This is a platform, and is the best hope for future development, and likely will be for quite some time.

I got my License at the age of 17 which is about 20 years ago...so i have basically flown a plane some thousands of times. Not to mention being a passenger over all the years....and still i ask...

3 hours ago, eslader said:

The comment was because we get at least one of these posts nearly every day, and we're kinda, you know, tired of it.

 

Out of curiosity, exactly what is your post saying better than its predecessors? 😉

 

It's not saying anything. It's asking something.

9 hours ago, frankla said:

Perhaps because I felt that you implied that the graphics alone is not enough.  Though seriously nothing was wrong about your question.

And thats true for me. Calling it a "Flight Simulator" i expect all aspects to work properly and not only the graphics.

What have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better graphic ?

Well, of course better graphic but, apart for better graphic, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better weather ?

That goes without saying but, apart for better graphic and better weather, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery ?

Sure but, apart for better graphic, better weather and worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Much better default airplanes ? 

Yes but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery and better default airplanes, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- A new flight model ?

Well, of course there's a new flight model but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes and a new flight model, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better usage of new hardware ?

I guess that's true but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- A visual scenery editor that caused an explosion of freeware never seen in years ?

Yes, we have a new visual scenery editor that we never had before but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- AI based on real flight ?

I think that's right but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better sound ?

I hear you but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI and better sound, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- An integrated Marketplace ?

Sure, we never had that before but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, better sound, and the Marketplace , what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Upcoming VR ?

I'll decide when I see it but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, better sound, the Marketplace and the upcoming VR, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better Multiplayer ?

I guess this is true but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, better sound, the Marketplace , the upcoming VR and a better multiplayer, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- More frequent updates of features and content ?

Yeah, you are right, it took many months to get the first path in FSX, more than a year to get the SP2 and the only addon content ( Acceleration ) was payware but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, better sound, the Marketplace , the upcoming VR, the better multiplayer and more frequent updates, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

And so on...

28 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

And thats true for me. Calling it a "Flight Simulator" i expect all aspects to work properly and not only the graphics.

There is no true flight simulator. Not even a level D multimillion dollar simulator can truly simulate real flight.

Anymore than you can build an accurate horse riding simulator for Windows 10.

Or a Cello playing simulator.

All of these are doomed to fail, some more so than others.

Each of the existing PC based flight games does a better job in simulating flight in some areas and worse in others. P3D for example excels at the (admittedly stiflingly boring) simulation of procedures, IFR, clicking switches and flying on autopilot at FL 300 - which MSFS is absolutely awful at and will be till 2022 or later.

MSFS however is better if you are trying to simulate landing flare and judging height by looking out the window,  YOU CAN ACTUALLY FLY A GOOD CIRCUIT WITHOUT EVER LOOKING AT THE INSTRUMENTS in MSFS which is pretty hard to do in other games.

The reason you are getting a negative reaction is no-one ever genuinely asks this sort of question with an open mind, invariably even if they do not even admit it to themselves they already have a preconceived answer (game xxx is actually better) and are just trying to confirm their suspicions or prove a point.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

The reason you are getting a negative reaction is no-one ever genuinely asks this sort of question with an open mind, invariably even if they do not even admit it to themselves they already have a preconceived answer (game xxx is actually better) and are just trying to confirm their suspicions or prove a point.

That might be true but i have stated multiple times that i am very pleased with MSFS even in its current state. Also i stated multiple times that MSFS has an outstanding graphical set. I even stated i don't have any more issues than others. I never said i'd go back to FSX or whatever as so many other people did before.

I for myself know the answer to my question and the single purpose of my OP was so see if other people are thinking the same. But people tend to make a drama out of topics like this. Its like being back in school and surely i have learned my lesson to never ask such a simple yet stupid question in this forum again.

Someone said he might have misread my OP and maybe other people did too. Well again, as someone who's first language is not the english one i try to express things the way i mean them as good as i can. If thats not enough to post here my offer would be: If your german is better than my english i'd be more than happy to continue to discuss in german language to avoid any more "misreadings" in the future. 

 

You say no one ever asks such a question with an open mind.... I am not responsible for the things people did ask before. If they didn't ask with an open mind thats their thing and i refuse to be called someone who doesn't have an open mind because of the many other people who didn't have one in the past. Sure i have my own opinion on MSFS (which isn't a negative one) but the OP wasn't about my opinion, it was asking for the opinion of other people. If you or anyone else is not able to understand the purpose of my question or is unable to imagine someone asking without any negativly biased opinion thats not my fault.

Thanks.

Edited November 28, 20205 yr by ThomseN_inc

34 minutes ago, virtuali said:

What have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better graphic ?

Well, of course better graphic but, apart for better graphic, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better weather ?

That goes without saying but, apart for better graphic and better weather, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery ?

Sure but, apart for better graphic, better weather and worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Much better default airplanes ? 

Yes but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery and better default airplanes, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- A new flight model ?

Well, of course there's a new flight model but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes and a new flight model, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better usage of new hardware ?

I guess that's true but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- A visual scenery editor that caused an explosion of freeware never seen in years ?

Yes, we have a new visual scenery editor that we never had before but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- AI based on real flight ?

I think that's right but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better sound ?

I hear you but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI and better sound, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- An integrated Marketplace ?

Sure, we never had that before but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, better sound, and the Marketplace , what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Upcoming VR ?

I'll decide when I see it but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, better sound, the Marketplace and the upcoming VR, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- Better Multiplayer ?

I guess this is true but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, better sound, the Marketplace , the upcoming VR and a better multiplayer, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

- More frequent updates of features and content ?

Yeah, you are right, it took many months to get the first path in FSX, more than a year to get the SP2 and the only addon content ( Acceleration ) was payware but, apart for better graphic, better weather, worldwide coverage of photoreal scenery, better default airplanes, a new flight model, better use of new hardware, a new scenery editor, better AI, better sound, the Marketplace , the upcoming VR, the better multiplayer and more frequent updates, what have MSFS ever done for us ?

And so on...

I'm sure you feel very confident now! great!

1 hour ago, wthomas33065 said:

Reread his original post and tell me that was originally meant to be objective.  Or that he wasn't being dismissive of the ONE thing that MSFS blows everything out of the water with.

Reread my post and tell me whats wrong to leave out (and i am repeating myself here again) the obvious for the sake of not discussing it again because it is (as stated earlier) obvious that MSFS is the best looking sim we have ever seen. Please tell me!

7 hours ago, snglecoil said:

I don’t know about all of the other models, but the 152 and 172 have some of the most convincing flight characteristics I have seen across any home flight sim to date. And as a CFI I spend a lot of time in 172s especially. It’s not perfect, but pretty darn good default airplane or not. I’d even put it against the A2A 172 in flight model.

There’s a lot of praise for many of the single prop FMs from real world pilots on the official forum.

Not a real world pilot myself but I believe MSFS models planes’ interactions with local weather and atmosphere conditions better than XP. Don’t know about P3D but I imagine it can’t model anything like the local conditions MSFS does (e.g. wind flow around buildings).

6 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

There’s a lot of praise for many of the single prop FMs from real world pilots on the official forum.

 

The FMs if you fly the way a real world pilot does, by the numbers, are usually ok.  It is when you come barrelling  in  high and fast (or low and slow )  on flare and do not go around or  if youget a bit out of shape on the ground roll etc etc  that issues arise.

Edited November 28, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick