3 hours ago, AnkH said:

Does anybody? To me, it is rather the other way around: 99% of the positive feedback on MSFS is about the visuals. For example I still never got any reasonable answer on my question about what exactly MSFS does better than any already available flightsim BESIDES the stunning visuals...

Im pretty sure you had MANY reasonable answers, but chose to ignore them...
And also, please provide the source of your 99% claim. 

Thanks

5 hours ago, AnkH said:

For example I still never got any reasonable answer on my question about what exactly MSFS does better than any already available flightsim BESIDES the stunning visuals...

It really does quite a few things as good or better than the other sims, but no doubt the stunning visuals are the main course--they massively contribute to the sense of immersion and flight.  As a 'cockpit simulator' MSFS isn't quite there, but indicators suggest it will get there.  FSDT has committed to GSX for MSFS, PMDG has committed as well.   Once we see the SDK matured to accommodate these and other addons all discussion re MSFS v other sims will go hasta la bye bye at least for desktop pilot, unless for example P3D implements Google imagery.  But even then they would have considerable work to catch up to how lovely the default airports are in MSFS, and many more features that are a little more subtle but add quality.  The maturity and depth in P3D is there of course and well should be as its been around now for over a decade, versus the 5 months for MSFS.

I've found a fabulous way to enjoy P3D for what it does best and it's breathed new life into the sim for me:  I fly only from dusk til dawn, when visuals only need rely on 3rd party airports which are fabulous w/ night lighting.  Trying to make P3D compete visually w/ MSFS is futile & expensive and not really possible anyway, and the sim is not efficient enough to handle it.  What this has done has let me turn down autogen and vegetation to SPARSE, LOD distance to MEDIUM because...it no longer matters!  I've disabled Orbx NCA & SCA so just using Global, and this means I can fly the complex birds into any metro terminal that normally would trash performance in the PMDG 777 despite a decent machine.   I love it--in the actual evenings I will do a nice 2-5h flight in the PMDG birds, then take off the following morning in the TBM930 and enjoy this kind of stuff:

And even this nothing burger rural strip 40m from Denver is simple but lovely in its own right--and much of the planet is replete with these, all included in the initial price:

 

Edited January 11, 20215 yr by Noel

5 hours ago, bendead said:

I agree, the visuals are stunning, but it's the mods that make me go back to the sim. The CJ4 apart from the landing phase is just so great on the system depth, It's the plane I use on all the remote airport I am landing on. The A32NX with FBW mod is a joy to land.

Lol... Float... and FLOAT...and FLOAT some more? It is a pain after a long flight. I find you kind of have to drive it onto the runway, and then get that nose down fast. 

 Without the mods I would have grown tired of the sim pretty quickly. I don't use a flight sim only for visuals, I use it to simulate the operation of aircraft. Honestly if there weren't aircraft improvement mods, Garmin improvement mods I don't think I would be using it. Even now, I am getting to the point where I can't wait for a study level GA bird of some kind to be released. 

And to be honest, yes the visuals are above other sims, but there are major visual issues that I am sure will be worked out over time and I understand the sim is in its infancy. (coastline glitch, lack of water masking, scenery popping in, morphing mountains, CTDs for many, grainy clouds, the horizon line)... you get the point) This is in addition to flight dynamic issues (adverse yaw anyone?) but that also could be remedied in the third party. Basically, A2A or some other study level developer, you have my money upon release lol.

4 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

when I noticed how good the panel work was on the model.

The panels are fantastic, esp the steam gauge 172...

 

Also note that the visual in the default planes come at little to no cost to performance and look good and crisp "even" at 1080 p and lower settings. However, there will be some jaggies. 
 

Edited January 11, 20215 yr by Ricardo41

7 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

... let's not forget to give Asobo credit for the great visual models. If that weren't the case, flying the modded default planes would be half as fund. (Example: the cabins of the default TBM and the CJ4)

That's why we need at least a 3d visual model 737 Max (or NG) so some smart aircraft developers like Zibo will turn it into a Pro version.

I just wish "flight dynamic" sim team was as qualified as 3D modeling team ! It's greatest mismatch in MSFS

Isn't the Multiplayer support also something that is greatly improved from previous versions of FS? Seems to be some good options and fairly fluid....

 

53 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I just wish "flight dynamic" sim team was as qualified as 3D modeling team ! It's greatest mismatch in MSFS

I never considered it Asobo's job to supply us with study level aircraft in the default sim.  Some of those aircraft for other sims have a price tag close to the entire cost of MSFS.  MS/Asobo have given developers of complex study level aircraft an amazing canvas to work with and in time I am sure we will see many aircraft that rival what is available in other sims in terms of flight dynamics and systems modeling.  I am already amazed what we have available to fly today in MSFS!  In VR, this sim simply gives me "best PC simming experience ever!" moments on an almost daily basis.

6 minutes ago, PlumCrazy said:

I never considered it Asobo's job to supply us with study level aircraft in the default sim.  Some of those aircraft for other sims have a price tag close to the entire cost of MSFS.  MS/Asobo have given developers of complex study level aircraft an amazing canvas to work with and in time I am sure we will see many aircraft that rival what is available in other sims in terms of flight dynamics and systems modeling.  I am already amazed what we have available to fly today in MSFS!  In VR, this sim simply gives me "best PC simming experience ever!" moments on an almost daily basis.

I wholeheartedly concur.  They, the 3rd party aircraft builders, are going to need to upgrade their graphic quality game as well as systems implementaiton.

4 minutes ago, PlumCrazy said:

I never considered it Asobo's job to supply us with study level aircraft in the default sim.  Some of those aircraft for other sims have a price tag close to the entire cost of MSFS.  MS/Asobo have given developers of complex study level aircraft an amazing canvas to work with and in time I am sure we will see many aircraft that rival what is available in other sims in terms of flight dynamics and systems modeling.  I am already amazed what we have available to fly today in MSFS!  In VR, this sim simply gives me "best PC simming experience ever!" moments on an almost daily basis.

I didn't write anything about complex study level aircraft I refer to correct simulation! For example, correct mixture simulation or trubo prop engine simulation, various effects on airplane behaviour on the ground and in the air and etc

2 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I didn't write anything about complex study level aircraft I refer to correct simulation! For example, correct mixture simulation or trubo prop engine simulation, various effects on airplane behaviour on the ground and in the air and etc

At present, some aircraft are better than others when it comes to accurate flight dynamics and systems.  Of course, much of that is the result of the sim community creating mods for the default aircraft.  Actually the default 152 and 172 are not terrible either.  If you have the Premium Deluxe version, you have 30 aircraft for a cost of around $130.  That means you paid around $4 per default aircraft - if you consider the underlying simulator software free!  In other words, you really shouldn't be complaining... 😉

1 minute ago, PlumCrazy said:

At present, some aircraft are better than others when it comes to accurate flight dynamics and systems.  Of course, much of that is the result of the sim community creating mods for the default aircraft.  Actually the default 152 and 172 are not terrible either.  If you have the Premium Deluxe version, you have 30 aircraft for a cost of around $130.  That means you paid around $4 per default aircraft - if you consider the underlying simulator software free!  In other words, you really shouldn't be complaining... 😉

Just to be clear I was MSFS alpha/beta tester. On top of that I'm CFI and airplane owner IRL. I'm well aware about mods and default aircraft state since I flown some of them IRL. So lets not to worry about who should or should not complain and focus on what should have been fixed back then and now 😉   

12 minutes ago, PlumCrazy said:

That means you paid around $4 per default aircraft - if you consider the underlying simulator software free!  In other words, you really shouldn't be complaining... 😉

The most basic aspect of aircraft performance - cruise speed and range - are still way off for many of the stock aircraft.  This has nothing to do with being 'study level', it's literally the most basic question you can ask before a flight - "How far can I fly and how long will it take?".  It's not even internally consistent within the game, in that aircraft can't always reach the range circles that the world map produces.  Before anything else I'd say that MSFS should be internally consistent within itself.

One of the most basic aspects of stick and rudder flying - adverse yaw when initiating turns - is totally missing.

For instrument flight, basic things like the orientation of localizers is wrong.  Asobo locks them all to the runway headings. 

Live weather still has a bug with 'altitude above sea level' vs 'altitude above ground level' which causes the wind and outside air temperature to be wrong in areas where the terrain is high.  Has been reported since Alpha.

Basic features of the Garmins like being able to use the OBS key to suspect automatic sequencing and use any waypoint as a virtual VOR are not present.  (FSX stock Garmins had this)

It's a great game for looking at Bing visuals (except the water maps which they continue to lie about).  But if you try to dig into it and plan a real world flight it just ends in frustration every time.

Edited January 11, 20215 yr by marsman2020

I suppose we can at least be thankful we did not get the equivalent of the Cyberpunk 2077 debacle.

https://www.techradar.com/au/news/sony-pulls-cyberpunk-2077-from-playstation-store-offers-full-refund

https://www.glitched.online/cd-projekt-red-might-face-government-fine-over-cyberpunk-2077/

Edited January 11, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick