At least with Cyberpunk 2077 it's likely the developer will actually make the game better over time.

I'm tired of playing "what is Asobo going to break in this update?".

Even 2 updates into the new 4-week release schedule, they keep introducing new problems, like scenery spikes and SimConnect CTDs

17 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

scenery spikes and SimConnect CTDs

Scenery spikes is an annoying issue but Simconnect CTD this is my a first time I hear about it.

6 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

Scenery spikes is an annoying issue but Simconnect CTD this is my a first time I hear about it.

 

Yeah fortunately for me i do not use fancy stuff like simconnect and none of the areas I fly seem to have scenery spikes. Nor do I use a lot of mods. and just fly VFR - in fact the sim has been flawless for me for since mid November. 

However I suspect I am like most of the great unwashed masses who are happy enough with the sim, whereas a more typical Avsim member probably use all sorts of sophisticated stuff that causes issues and is a lot more particular about things like FM issues. 

I can see how frustrating it must be for people with continuous issues and count myself fortunate I have none.

Edited January 11, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

8 hours ago, jpe828 said:

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.

I usually cut the power early when in managed mode on approach to deal with the floating. Or come in 4-5 knots slower than VAPP speed manually. The floating is annoying though haha

Delete

Edited January 12, 20215 yr by environmental_ice

Floating too much with too much elevator authority in flare has been a generic issue in all MS flight sims. It teaches prospective pilots to push the aircraft on to the runway and plant the nose wheel to the ire of any future real world instructors.

Ironically I have found the Carenado Mooney, a plane with a real world reputation of floating off the end of the runway and half way to the next state if you are even a couple of knots fast, to be the other way and wash off speed quite quickly when "dirty" with full flaps, gear down and the spoilers out, . You can come in at 90 to 100 knots in the Mooney and still land in a reasonable distance.

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Floating too much with too much elevator authority in flare has been a generic issue in all MS flight sims. It teaches prospective pilots to push the aircraft on to the runway and plant the nose wheel to the ire of any future real world instructors.

I honestly never had the problem until MSFS 2020, unless I came in too fast. Maybe I had the issue in 1-2 planes in FSX, but even the default 737 landed fine really, cannot recall having the ground effect issue like it exists in FS 2020. Xplane seemed to be really good on the landings and feel really fluid, and FS 2020 seems like every landing is just a crash waiting to happen. Pretty much I always use the spoilers on any plane that has them, but speed brakes are only supposed to affect forward drag on the ground more than lift, so planes that have only speed brakes - it might not help as much theoretically at least.

I think there is an inherent problem, as you can glide way too far with very little power, and we know the basic fuel and flight distance ratios and even the performance RPM's to burn are not anywhere close to accurate. Most other sims had these reasonably correct even in the default planes, there were a few problems, but they were not off by this much. I think Asobo's mistake here was creating too many default planes, they bit off more than they had time to chew. I guess it's nice to have so many planes, but I would have preferred more dual-turbos and jets and fewer single engine bush planes. Something is wrong with the underlying physics of both flaps and ground effect, as well as how far some planes glide with no flaps and very little power. Even having the engine barely exerting any power at all and you can glide almost forever in some planes in FS 2020.

I hope they fix the landings, because IMO it is the biggest issue with the flight model. Also, right after the plane hits the ground there is an exaggerated rudder pull effect, but I admit this could be because I use a joystick, but it much more extreme than any other sim.

Edited January 12, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

13 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

but I would have preferred more dual-turbos and jets and fewer single engine bush planes. Something is wrong with the underlying physics of both flaps and ground effect, as well as how far some planes glide with no flaps and very little power.

 

yeah, you can sort of see what they did, they are all different, the icon is amphibious, some have flaps, some have flaperons others have no flaps at all, some are tail wheel, some have RG while others are fixed, some have CSU props or automixture, some are high speed luxury commuters and others are STOL bush planes. Even then not enough have steam gauges and none are radials.  They definitely are not multiple variations of the exact same light GA plane.

However I do agree they would have been better off with a smaller initial set of default planes and expand it later as needs be.

Edited January 12, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

23 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

However I do agree they would have been better off with a smaller initial set of default planes and expand it later as needs be.

Agree. I would have much rather had 10 planes at launch and had that effort be spent in order areas of the sim. 

8 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

 

Interesting. I have had many flights with littlenavmap and FBW mod with the custom fly-by-wire system which uses Simconnect as well and never had a CTD. It could differes from one system to another.