4 months in - brief review of MSFS 2020

[lgcharlot 22]

I installed MSFS 4 months ago and have played about 500 hours on it now, enough to make some statements about it:
The graphics and flight model are way more realistic than they were in FSX, yet the aircraft and scenery controls are enough like FSX that it's easy to get flying in MSFS in just an hour or two. The cockpit graphics for the instrument panels are light-years better than FSX instruments. But I have to temper this positive impression with some less-than-ideal aspects of MSFS:

1. There is no support for supersonic flight. The aerodynamic modeling seems to behave as if Mach 1 is an impenetrable wall. Even aircraft like the TBM or Cessna Citation, that should be easily able to exceed Mach 1 in a full-power vertical dive from high altitude, will not do so. They get very unstable and shake violently, but will not exceed about 740 mph no matter what. If MSFS is ever going to accommodate military aircraft like the F-18, that are so popular with FSX pilots, the flight model will have to be radically altered to account for supersonic flight. Importing FSX military aircraft into MSFS is possible, but they will not fly at supersonic speeds, and behave like a Lear jet would, only worse, as aircraft like the F-18 aren't really stable at slow speeds.

2. There is no modeling of thermal updrafts, so no sailplane is provided with MSFS, and there is no command to call for a tow plane as there is in FSX. Perhaps this will be included in a future release. Lightweight aircraft with high aspect ratio wings, like the Pipestral, which should be able to glide fairly well, seem to have too high of a rate of descent even with no fuel or payload. It looks to me like the flight model isn't accurate for non-powered sailplanes.

3. The game will not load unless there is a live Internet connection, even if the owner has downloaded and installed the Digital Ownership certificate. This is unreasonable; the game should still be able to run locally if the owner doesn't have an internet connection and doesn't need to stream scenery data or run in Multiplayer mode. And at odd intervals, it asks you to "insert the game install disc". WTH? This game is only available as a digital download; there's no such thing as a "game install disc" AFAIK.

4. If you try to run on hardware that only meets the "minimum system requirements", the frame rate in high-density scenery areas will be very low, 6 frames/second, even with the scenery settings all on "minimum". It's nearly impossible to land any of the big airliners smoothly with a frame rate this slow. MSFS doesn't need a CPU with more than 4 cores, but it absolutely needs the best GPU card you can afford. I am running an AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, and can barely get 24 fps with "medium" scenery in any high-density region like the San Francisco Bay Area. If you are building a machine specifically to play MSFS, spring for at least a Radeon RX 6800 XT, you will need it to get MSFS to look anything at all like the ad trailers for the game. You also don't need more than 32 gB of DRAM. The game runs best on an SSD, but be aware that it writes a lot of cache data, and I suspect that MSFS will wear out a typical SSD in no more than a couple of years. You will have longer load times with a conventional hard disk drive, but it will probably last longer.

5. The worst part of MSFS is it's stability issues. It's very prone to CTD (Crash-to-Desktop) errors. These are almost impossible to diagnose the cause of. I have plenty of DRAM - 64 gB in fact - and a Ryzen 5-3600 6-core CPU, so it is unlikely that my CTD's are being caused by lack of memory or CPU capacity. I've never seen more than 25% CPU utilization running MSFS on my Ryzen 5, but the GPU is always right at the upper limit. For some reason, the 747-8I will simply not run at KSFO on my machine: As soon as I click "Ready to Fly", I get a CTD. This feels like a memory error, but I have more than enough DRAM, and 8gB of VRAM on my GPU. Trying to load a previously recorded flight plan at start-up almost always causes a CTD, especially on the 747 and 787. The game runs my RX 5500 XT GPU right up to 98% most of the time, and even with the scenery turned down to "low", I can't get better than 20 FPS on approaches into KSFO, KJFK, or any other big-city airport. You really do need a $650 or better GPU card to run this game at anything like the image quality levels of the ad trailers.

8. In addition to the CTD problem, MSFS has an annoying habit of "forgetting" that I purchased the $120 Premium package, and for the last few days, every time I load the game, I am only seeing the basic aircraft in the hanger. This is the third time this has happened to me, and the last two times, the only "fix" that worked was to completely uninstall the game and download all 200+ gB and re-install it from scratch. This is completely unacceptable, considering that I have only DSL internet, and it takes 72 hours to download  MSFS on a 10 mbps DSL line. Hundreds of people who bought the $90 and $120 Premium packages are reporting this bug, and the various "fixes" that Microsoft has come up with only seem to work for about 1/3 of the people with this problem.

9. No support for multiple view windows. This is bad news for people who invested in multiple monitors. You can drag the Camera View Control dialog box and the Map window over to a secondary monitor, and you can place the SDK dialog boxes (for scenery design) into a secondary monitor, but there can be only one pilot view window. You can be looking out of the wind screen, or a side window, or at the instrument panel, but you can't put the straight-ahead view on the center monitor, and a view of the instrument panel on another view window on the secondary monitor. MSFS is way behind FSX in this respect. One can only hope that Asobo has plans to greatly increase the versatility of the view system on a future release. MSFS can be very frustrating and limited to experienced FSX pilots because it's view windowing system has so much less capability.

10. The SDK for scenery design is still full of bugs and missing features, and the documentation for it is about 75% "Page To Be Added At A Later Date". It works well, when it works at all, but the SDK is also plagued by CTD's. To use the SDK, you almost have to know the basic structure and syntax of XML, so that you can de-bug the code yourself, and add things that are missing, like VOR's and NDB's. Yes, this software was released with no way to add them within the SDK Object Placer itself. If you know the proper syntax. you can manually code a VOR or NDB into the Scenery XML file for your airport, and the built-in compiler will produce a BGL file that has the VOR, and it will read correctly in any aircraft that has a VOR, but the Object Library doesn't include VOR's or NDB's.

It's a lovely sim, well worth the $60 entry price, but I have to take both Microsoft and Asobo to task over the stability problems: this software should have spent at least another year in Beta test, and been tested on a much wider variety of hardware, before it was released. If this was an office productivity software suite, for example Microsoft Office, and it was released with this level of instability, no one would ever trust Microsoft again with a contract for commercial software.

[overspeed3 410]

Plus, MSFS is still missing many features that were standard in aircraft for perhaps four or five generations of Microsoft flight sims...

[Chock 17,769]

38 minutes ago, lgcharlot said:

Even aircraft like the TBM or Cessna Citation, that should be easily able to exceed Mach 1 in a full-power vertical dive from high altitude, will not do so.

I should think it is unlikely a Cessna 525 or a TBM would be able to make it past Mach 1, even disregarding the notion that they'd also fail structurally if they attempted it. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Chock

[flyforever 267]

2 hours ago, lgcharlot said:

I installed MSFS 4 months ago and have played about 500 hours on it now, enough to make some statements about it:
The graphics and flight model are way more realistic than they were in FSX, yet the aircraft and scenery controls are enough like FSX that it's easy to get flying in MSFS in just an hour or two. The cockpit graphics for the instrument panels are light-years better than FSX instruments. But I have to temper this positive impression with some less-than-ideal aspects of MSFS:

1. There is no support for supersonic flight. The aerodynamic modeling seems to behave as if Mach 1 is an impenetrable wall. Even aircraft like the TBM or Cessna Citation, that should be easily able to exceed Mach 1 in a full-power vertical dive from high altitude, will not do so. They get very unstable and shake violently, but will not exceed about 740 mph no matter what. If MSFS is ever going to accommodate military aircraft like the F-18, that are so popular with FSX pilots, the flight model will have to be radically altered to account for supersonic flight. Importing FSX military aircraft into MSFS is possible, but they will not fly at supersonic speeds, and behave like a Lear jet would, only worse, as aircraft like the F-18 aren't really stable at slow speeds.

2. There is no modeling of thermal updrafts, so no sailplane is provided with MSFS, and there is no command to call for a tow plane as there is in FSX. Perhaps this will be included in a future release. Lightweight aircraft with high aspect ratio wings, like the Pipestral, which should be able to glide fairly well, seem to have too high of a rate of descent even with no fuel or payload. It looks to me like the flight model isn't accurate for non-powered sailplanes.

3. The game will not load unless there is a live Internet connection, even if the owner has downloaded and installed the Digital Ownership certificate. This is unreasonable; the game should still be able to run locally if the owner doesn't have an internet connection and doesn't need to stream scenery data or run in Multiplayer mode. And at odd intervals, it asks you to "insert the game install disc". WTH? This game is only available as a digital download; there's no such thing as a "game install disc" AFAIK.

4. If you try to run on hardware that only meets the "minimum system requirements", the frame rate in high-density scenery areas will be very low, 6 frames/second, even with the scenery settings all on "minimum". It's nearly impossible to land any of the big airliners smoothly with a frame rate this slow. MSFS doesn't need a CPU with more than 4 cores, but it absolutely needs the best GPU card you can afford. I am running an AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, and can barely get 24 fps with "medium" scenery in any high-density region like the San Francisco Bay Area. If you are building a machine specifically to play MSFS, spring for at least a Radeon RX 6800 XT, you will need it to get MSFS to look anything at all like the ad trailers for the game. You also don't need more than 32 gB of DRAM. The game runs best on an SSD, but be aware that it writes a lot of cache data, and I suspect that MSFS will wear out a typical SSD in no more than a couple of years. You will have longer load times with a conventional hard disk drive, but it will probably last longer.

5. The worst part of MSFS is it's stability issues. It's very prone to CTD (Crash-to-Desktop) errors. These are almost impossible to diagnose the cause of. I have plenty of DRAM - 64 gB in fact - and a Ryzen 5-3600 6-core CPU, so it is unlikely that my CTD's are being caused by lack of memory or CPU capacity. I've never seen more than 25% CPU utilization running MSFS on my Ryzen 5, but the GPU is always right at the upper limit. For some reason, the 747-8I will simply not run at KSFO on my machine: As soon as I click "Ready to Fly", I get a CTD. This feels like a memory error, but I have more than enough DRAM, and 8gB of VRAM on my GPU. Trying to load a previously recorded flight plan at start-up almost always causes a CTD, especially on the 747 and 787. The game runs my RX 5500 XT GPU right up to 98% most of the time, and even with the scenery turned down to "low", I can't get better than 20 FPS on approaches into KSFO, KJFK, or any other big-city airport. You really do need a $650 or better GPU card to run this game at anything like the image quality levels of the ad trailers.

8. In addition to the CTD problem, MSFS has an annoying habit of "forgetting" that I purchased the $120 Premium package, and for the last few days, every time I load the game, I am only seeing the basic aircraft in the hanger. This is the third time this has happened to me, and the last two times, the only "fix" that worked was to completely uninstall the game and download all 200+ gB and re-install it from scratch. This is completely unacceptable, considering that I have only DSL internet, and it takes 72 hours to download  MSFS on a 10 mbps DSL line. Hundreds of people who bought the $90 and $120 Premium packages are reporting this bug, and the various "fixes" that Microsoft has come up with only seem to work for about 1/3 of the people with this problem.

9. No support for multiple view windows. This is bad news for people who invested in multiple monitors. You can drag the Camera View Control dialog box and the Map window over to a secondary monitor, and you can place the SDK dialog boxes (for scenery design) into a secondary monitor, but there can be only one pilot view window. You can be looking out of the wind screen, or a side window, or at the instrument panel, but you can't put the straight-ahead view on the center monitor, and a view of the instrument panel on another view window on the secondary monitor. MSFS is way behind FSX in this respect. One can only hope that Asobo has plans to greatly increase the versatility of the view system on a future release. MSFS can be very frustrating and limited to experienced FSX pilots because it's view windowing system has so much less capability.

10. The SDK for scenery design is still full of bugs and missing features, and the documentation for it is about 75% "Page To Be Added At A Later Date". It works well, when it works at all, but the SDK is also plagued by CTD's. To use the SDK, you almost have to know the basic structure and syntax of XML, so that you can de-bug the code yourself, and add things that are missing, like VOR's and NDB's. Yes, this software was released with no way to add them within the SDK Object Placer itself. If you know the proper syntax. you can manually code a VOR or NDB into the Scenery XML file for your airport, and the built-in compiler will produce a BGL file that has the VOR, and it will read correctly in any aircraft that has a VOR, but the Object Library doesn't include VOR's or NDB's.

It's a lovely sim, well worth the $60 entry price, but I have to take both Microsoft and Asobo to task over the stability problems: this software should have spent at least another year in Beta test, and been tested on a much wider variety of hardware, before it was released. If this was an office productivity software suite, for example Microsoft Office, and it was released with this level of instability, no one would ever trouust Microsoft again with a contract for commercial software.

I was getting bored, and this sim awakened me to new possibilities. I am excited about the updates, I am excited about the new products. I have not complaints and am willing to wait patiently until things improve.....

[Silicus 849]

The glass is half full! The base of the sim is fantastic, is it perfect? No. 

No sim ever was and will be released in perfect state. For me it is version 0.95.

Most of the glitches will be worked out and things are slowly improving. Some moments are very very realistic and give me goose bumps. I can overlook the shortcomings for now.

This is the most advance flight sim we ever had and it certainly fits into the second decade of this century.

I have close to 300 hours on this sim and_never_had_a_CTD, I know that does not help those who do, but I am very selective what add-ons and mods I install.

I am building a A320Neo cockpit with FSUIPC and mobiflight and things are VERY stable and working well, but again, I keep my 'Community' folder and my PC very clean and slim and it is a new build with nothing on there except Firefox and MSFS.

Anyone who has trouble, I recommend a complete clean re-install and of Windows 10 after formatting your OS drive. I know it is painful and a lot of work, but I am positive it will get rid of your CTD if you can keep your machine only for MSFS and nothing else and run it with updated drivers.

Windows is prone to deteriorate over time. Good luck! 

[rickjake 243]

 

"and it was released with this level of instability"  For some, not all 

If they would have waited to release MSFS, like some people wished they did, then I , and people like me, would not be able to enjoy MSFS in VR like I do now, flying the A320Nx, CJ4 mod, etc.  Is there problems and features missing? Sure there are, and they are being worked on. My motto,, enjoy what you have now, while waiting for it to get even better. A software program of this magnitude will always be actively worked on. Especially in the beginning.

I am lucky that I have very few CTD. Maybe 3 since release.  I have had many more CTD using P3D over the years.  I have never lost the Premium package, and have never had to re-download MSFS.  Even when I updated my PC, with a new CPU, Motherboard and new install of Windows 10. I just downloaded the main installer, pointed it to my MSFS SSD drive, where the bulk of the files are stored and I did not have to re-down load the 90 gigs of data. 

I can certainly understand the frustrations and in some cases, the harsh comments some people make, If they are constantly having issues like CTD.  So I have to conclude that it must be some combination of hardware, software and configurations of peoples computers that are causing  major issues for some. Or just a corrupted operating system.  Otherwise, we all would be having the same problem.

Good luck. Hope you get it sorted out. 

 

[mseder 2]

Hi

I’ve been flying FSX for 10 years almost only IFR and with the most complex PMDG, Aerosoft and QualityWing aircrafts and sceneries.

After a month with MSFS I would say it’s VFR-simulator with nice land-sceneries and with a touch of being a “fun game”.  The included airports are ok, the included airliners B737, B747 and A320 is far from FSX + Add on quality. They seem unstable during approaches and acts more like small planes a windy day. They feel more like toys than simulators. Also so much of basic functionalities like a stable trim-functionality plus plenty of other functionalities is missing that keep the real simulator feeling away.

We’re back 20 years in time with the ATC that seem very much like the FSX ATC. Also the ground-services are poor. They only work on some airports and only when you depart.

A lot of flexibility is missing e.g.
- Change the aircraft during flight
- Move the aircraft during flight
- Sim rate displayed
- Pause at TOD
- Real pause functionality (that freezes time, not only the aircraft)

FSMS is like going to the hamburger-restaurant and being forced to buy the whole menu with no flexibility. It has kind of a plastic and fixed touch.

After 1 month I went back to FSX now waiting for PMDG, Aerosoft and Qualitywings to develop their products for FSMS. Also ATC add-ons like Pro ATC are supposed to be converted and not the least FSDreamteams GSX-solutions (= ground services like Jetways, Passenger and payload, fueling etc) is a must before I go back to MSFS. There are plenty of sceneries to buy already. They are gorgeous and make me even more inpatient to have that combination of good looking graphics and serious functionalities that brings back the real simulation-feeling.

Mats Sederholm