I normally stick with Boeing. I have to admit I have been lazy for not making the effort to learn the A320. 

Jean-Paul,

Well, I did wade through the cited thread (now up to 9 pages) and whilst most of it is all about programming, and thus, way over my head, it did tend to point out some very relevant threads.

If I have understood it correctly, and this is a moot point, it very much does seem that the SDK is all OK (if you want to work with the new APIs) Further, it would appear that most of the 3PD delays that I have previously put down to immature SDK are actually a by-product of reluctant developers to change from C+++ (whatever that is) and who are patiently waiting for MSFS to "change their ways"  and that IMO is a fruitless exercise.

It would appear, at least on the surface, that quite a few developers will now step in to take the initiative which will erode a lot of the incentives for the old school developers and for them to have to play "catch up" in the long term.  This catch up may never happen, because profit margins will also have eroded in the meantime.

All in all, after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, it was a very interesting topic and I am guessing that a lot of different interpretations will be the result.

Essentially, it appears that some developers are playing a blame game instead of an adaption game and may well come off second best, particularly if other and newer developers (who, incidentally, do not have in-built cost issues related to C+++) do indeed, step in to take up the very obvious slack.

Hats off to Huascar for his inappropriate topic title, who has inadvertently ??? raised this side issue again. I am happy mainly because I had not been aware of the thread link you provided.

Regards with gratitude

Tony

 

 

20 hours ago, Huascar said:

Relatively new to MSFS (about two weeks), and my first impression thus far is that the default planes are near useless, especially the jetliners. For instance, the autopilot for the 747 and A320 is inoperable and the control's sensitivity is universally bad.

 

There is no excuse for MSFS not allowing and easy setting 'effectiveness' of the controllers. FSX allowed that easily (with 0 to 100 slider bars). But not MSFS.

On the other hand MSFS allows setting the sensitivity curve which FSX did not.

Meanwhile CHCM (the control manager for CH branded controllers designed by Bob Church) allows a quick, permanent, easy way to set both.

The blue arrow is really the effetiveness  number (not sensitivity) and the orange arrow points to the two click spots to alter the sensitivity curve.

CHCM could (and still does!) allow easy to set controller profiles in seconds which works in almost any flightsim, including extremely well and fast in MSFS. Unfortunately it only works with CH branded controllers. ☹️

Mainly I wanted to say there is no excuse for MSFS not allowing a UI screen for effectiveness (like FSX did have for any controller and CHCM still has for their controllers) !!!

 

 

 

Plenty of nice airplanes to fly.

Do I miss the PMDG 777/747 and 737 of course. Enough to mope around about it and complain? Nope.

 

Ive now virtually type rated myself in the CJ4. I’m in it to fly and At the end of the day it doesn't have to be an airliner for me. Just whatever’s available and decent.

Edited December 21, 20205 yr by Azapata87
Can’t spell

What makes the game amazing?  The graphics?  I have the full version and there are at least 20 planes to fly not counting third party addons.  Sure maybe the default ones are not completely realistic but then again the game isn't done yet.

21 hours ago, Silicus said:

MSFS is a good base and over time will mature in many aspects.

Having trouble determining if it's still in beta, or in early charlie. I have great hopes as an investor.  My financial investments are skying......  This one is focused on the ground.  

17 hours ago, RaptyrOne said:

Nice summary of the mods everyone should have in their Community Folder. For me the real challenge is trying to keep up with all the updates to these mods.

Download some of them from Flightsim.to when possible.   If you're logged in to that site,  it shows you when a new version is available and what the last version you downloaded was.

https://flightsim.to/c/third-party/aircraft

For the A320,  there is an installer on A320neo mod's page which makes it easy to keep up to date..

 

Quote

 

A32NX Installer

Download the new A32NX installer where you can select either the Stable or Developer build, and download and install the mod directly into your community folder, download here

 

 

Edited December 21, 20205 yr by Waldo Pepper

1 hour ago, Fielder said:

There is no excuse for MSFS not allowing and easy setting 'effectiveness' of the controllers. FSX allowed that easily (with 0 to 100 slider bars). But not MSFS.

On the other hand MSFS allows setting the sensitivity curve which FSX did not.

Meanwhile CHCM (the control manager for CH branded controllers designed by Bob Church) allows a quick, permanent, easy way to set both.

The blue arrow is really the effetiveness  number (not sensitivity) and the orange arrow points to the two click spots to alter the sensitivity curve.

CHCM could (and still does!) allow easy to set controller profiles in seconds which works in almost any flightsim, including extremely well and fast in MSFS. Unfortunately it only works with CH branded controllers. ☹️

Mainly I wanted to say there is no excuse for MSFS not allowing a UI screen for effectiveness (like FSX did have for any controller and CHCM still has for their controllers) !!!

 

 

CH Products doe not recommend using this software on Windows 10.  It has not been updated and it causes major problems for some people.

Joystick Gremlin is a good supported alternative, and works with any joystick.  

Yep, total disappointment. I've gone back to X-Plane and think I might just stay. Was part of the alpha and beta and I find it inexcusable the flight models are so terrible with default planes. 

It's a beautiful environment generator that's for sure. 

4 minutes ago, leinsters said:

I find it inexcusable the flight models are so terrible with default planes. 

I have to agree with you. Default aircraft are so very much better in FS2004, FSX and P3D. You forgot to mention that the default scenery is also much better than in all the other platforms,

I genuinely hope that you are being just as sarcastic as I am

Regards

Tony

34 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

I have to agree with you. Default aircraft are so very much better in FS2004, FSX and P3D. You forgot to mention that the default scenery is also much better than in all the other platforms,

The FS2004 default Cessna was truly awful.

You pulled back on the stick in flare with the stall alarm going off and it did an Immelman. You kind of had to almost push it on the runway with forward stick which in a real aircraft would wreck the nose wheel followed by a big bounce.  The FM seemed to use some sort of lookup tables that were only correct very close to standard flight conditions and way out of whack if you did anything even slightly unusual.   It was often said at the time that if you wanted to practice your landings,  the bf109E in IL2 Sturmovich was closer in overall feel to a real 172 than the Fs2004 default Cessna.  The "numbers" in the cockpit on the gauges in the FS2004 plane may have been sort of close but the general feel of the aircraft in short final and flare was just nonsense.

Edited December 21, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

I was using my CH fighterstck usb and ch pro pedals with CHCM with no problems. Worked fine because I did not map those two controllers together, I just used the direct download icon in CHCM. It allows putting keyboard keys directly onto hats and buttons. Also the CMS scripting built into CHCM worked perfectly with MSFS.

But CHCM direct download only, not mapped, I agree the mapped feature of CHCM was unreliable, even in Windows 7. Was stable in Win XP.

I moved onto TM Warthog HOTAS controller, but miss a few advanced tricks CH control manager can do.

 

As others said, myself also Flying the XCUB, CJ4, TBM and A320 with their respective mods.

Also i am an online "pervert" as i fly always online at VATSIM and never had a problem especially since the last month. 

For me there are literally 0 reasons to moan about MSFS... Also its like i had a FREE PC upgrade compared to the performance i was getting with P3D.

I am running high-ultra with a rather 2-3 year old setup: http://www.estassinos.com/flight-simulator-settings/

And here are the mods/programs i am using. I am really having too much fun with it 🙂 http://www.estassinos.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-third-party-software-mods/

On 12/20/2020 at 9:06 AM, marsman2020 said:

I agree Asobo hasn't really delivered a great default sim experience.  I'm ok with some systems being not modeled in default aircraft, but the IFR procedure and autopilot functionality should at least work.

...

 

I think you forgot the exceptional  mod for the TBM: https://github.com/guifarias31/msfs_tbm930_project which as i see sadly it is discontinued 😞

On 12/20/2020 at 12:30 AM, Huascar said:

While I understand they are the default planes, the game should have never been launched in its current state. We need third party developers to come up with top notch aircrafts.  If Aerosoft, FSLAB and PMDG fail, MSFS is doomed because without realistic planes you do not have a flight simulator. I guess Aerosoft is under the radar as they will be the first to release a complex jetliner.

I'm with you and share a good part of your statement. If the Mods were non existent we would have a simulator in urgent need to have their default planes drastically improved. Fortunately lots of talented simmers have helped on this and we now have very good GA aircraft (mentioned before, like the Bonanza, the CJ4, etc.), very good instruments mods (like the Garmin G1000/3000). In the airliners department, we have the excellent work of FlyByWire guys for the A320neo. Anyway, a complete list is posted in this same thread above. Regretfully it'll be some time to have the first batch of add-on aircraft released, being the Aerosoft CRJ probably the first of them, with all the nuances and teething issues that will arise for sure, considering its past experience for the FSX-P3D platform.

Hopefully all the wonderful Mods work can be incorporated sooner than later on the official Asobo aircraft, at least we know Asobo is talking to FBW people, otherwise looks to me that we'll have to wait months to get the default aircraft in an acceptable shape.

It's also important to remember the trouble with the AP systems of all the default aircraft. I don't think Asobo is giving high priority to solve the current AP issues, as they seem to take more of their time in world updates and the eye-candy features of the simulator, and hopefully too this would change soon for the benefit of the more demanding simmers.

Cheers, Ed