This is an honest question. I'm not trolling or trying to start another flame war. But there is something I just don't understand. Why do folks that fly mainly tubeliners care so much about using MSFS because of the "immersion" of the scenery? How much "stuff" on the ground can you see through the haze at FL40? Especially while looking out of the cockpit windscreen/windows of an airliner.

Can't see a lot at FL40 but see loads on take off and landing. Those two phases involve around 30mins below 5000ft. I take off and climb to FL30 or FL40 and step away from the computer. Then come back for the landing. The scenery matters for those parts.

Recently I have been flying city to city in the US but today I flew from Adelaide to Alice Springs (the centre of Australia). Completely different landscape. Barren desert with completely different autogen. The cockpit stays the same - its what's outside that keeps changing.

Edited December 20, 20205 yr by sanh

Before MSFS was released I did many high altitude flights in the Lear 25D and the Citation Mustang and my feeling is that the atmosphere, real weather feature, and ground scenery created by default MSFS is fantastic!

As an example this morning's flight was from KMNE (by DCDSD) to LatinVFR's KMSY on my beloved Mooney Bravo. Leaving the airport I had to rely on my instruments. It was cloudy and misty. Once I broke through the clouds I was gobsmacked at the visuals. Stayed VFR on top at 5500 and just enjoyed the view. I did the full approach to ILS 29 and when I penetrated the clouds it felt so real. I broke through the clouds. It was misty and and the winds had an effect on the airplane.

When I was done, I really felt as if I had done the flight IRL.

That how I felt about XP11. Great to cruise at FL400, but after coming to approach things looked not that good. If you consider that pilots  usually count landing as highlight of the entire flight then you may see how approach visuals does matter!

2 hours ago, W2DR said:

This is an honest question. I'm not trolling or trying to start another flame war. But there is something I just don't understand. Why do folks that fly mainly tubeliners care so much about using MSFS because of the "immersion" of the scenery? How much "stuff" on the ground can you see through the haze at FL40? Especially while looking out of the cockpit windscreen/windows of an airliner.

Because the scenery includes the sky as well as the ground, and the sky looks great at 40,000 feet. But also because at some point (well two points in an airliner flight to be precise), the thing is not up at 40,000 feet.

Edited December 21, 20205 yr by Chock

3 minutes ago, Chock said:

Because the scenery includes the sky as well as the ground, and the sky looks great at 40,000 feet. But also because at some point (well two points in an airliner flight to be precise), the thing is not up at 40,000 feet.

To resurrect a phrase, 'what he said'.

Thanks Alan.

For those who have MSFS 2020 does the weather extend higher than 40k - massive towering storm cells? If yes, then that's also a very good reason to care about tubeliners in the new sim.

25 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

For those who have MSFS 2020 does the weather extend higher than 40k - massive towering storm cells? If yes, then that's also a very good reason to care about tubeliners in the new sim.

The weather is on another level to anything ive seen in P3D with SF AS you name it, many times unlike in P3D you see the weather and you go around without question.

For me, approach and departure are amazing.  In particular the final approach at airports where there are buildings etc close to the runway end.

But even at cruise, the photo scenery blows away landclass IMHO.  I flew BUR-LAS yesterday and the flight over the desert in clear skies was gorgeous, even in the short cruise period.

It’s not just the ground either, the sky atmospherics and clouds blow away my previous experience in P3D.  Also, default airports are good enough compared to P3D that I don’t feel limited to flying into airports that I’ve bought addon scenery for (not to mention the many good freeware airports available).

Having said all this, I still haven’t fully cast P3D aside.  I flew YVR-SFO the other day in the FSLabs A319.  The aircraft experience was second to none, and it felt great to use my Skalarki hardware again, but as I descended into SFO (using the ORBX NCA region) I couldn’t help but think how much better the terrain would look if I were flying in MSFS.  The P3D landclass just couldn’t compare.

The WT CJ4 and FBW A320N mods are very good and provide a great platform for tube line flying.  

Edited December 21, 20205 yr by regis9

In all previous sims....anytime I turned up the detail to even get 30% of how good the world/environment looks in MSFS, I got a slide show most of the time during TO/LD.  And my favorite approach into KLAX over SEAVU, between the mountain gap....forget it in other sims.  In MSFS, smooth as silk everywhere in SOCAL, visuals....absolutely stunning.   

I've flown that approach as a passenger more times than I can remember, and the landmarks I've memorized along the route are perfect in MSFS...with the exception of the race track that is still showing under construction but I believe is now complete (saw it many times in various phases of construction as we flew past it...I always sit on the starboard side of the aircraft....you get the best views and can see downtown LA clearly on a low-smog day.)  Not a big deal IMO.

 

10 minutes ago, Steve Dra said:

And my favorite approach into KLAX over SEAVU

That helps me decide my next flight, thanks!

4 hours ago, HighBypass said:

For those who have MSFS 2020 does the weather extend higher than 40k - massive towering storm cells? If yes, then that's also a very good reason to care about tubeliners in the new sim.

Yup. storm cells actually do look threatening in MSFS: