On 4/13/2021 at 3:16 PM, EvidencePlz said:

In MSFS 2020 The only way you can have a point A to B flight reliably is if you hand-fly the plane

Colossal nonsense statement.  Most of my flights in the TBM and DA62 are IFR and include procedures, ILS/RNAV and I hand fly them as well.  So please don't convey this sort of nonsense to someone seeking accurate information.

1 hour ago, jfri said:

I have missed that one since it had Focke Wolf in the name, so I thought that it was the WW2 german fighter plane. I see it is also less expensive than the Arrow III.

The bf108/Nord 1000  suffers from a similar misunderstanding.

The P149 is on my definite "to buy" list.  I was actually intending to pick it up this week but ended up diverting the funds to a few French airports that were on special instead.

Interestingly the issue some people have with this 1953 design is it is too accurate to the period - steam gauges, no GPS and a radio that will not tune modern frequencies is a no go for some people.  My actual intent for this thing is the same sort of local VFR I do in the Jabiru so none of that matters to me personally but be aware that IFR is by VOR /DME/NDB and the radio frequency increments are apparently historically correct but do not necessarily match modern base stations and nav aids.

 

Edited April 15, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

On 4/13/2021 at 3:16 PM, EvidencePlz said:

In MSFS 2020 The only way you can have a point A to B flight reliably is if you hand-fly the plane, and this is valid for not only the default but the third parties as well.

I'm the first one to point out many issues I perceive with the sim but... I've flown 1/3rd of the way around the world so far, much of it with the Asobo AP on, with only a few instances of issues. 

There are certainly situations where you can get the AP messed up to where it won't work anymore (mostly if you put it in an off-nominal situation where it pegs the trim for some reason) but it you fly at sensible airspeeds it will climb, follow a magenta line, and descend OK on the GA aircraft.

This is not to say that there are not issues with the AP, but in many situations it will work fine.  I do think it has improved since launch in it's general stability.

Edited April 15, 20215 yr by marsman2020

10 hours ago, jfri said:

And what is this legacy ? And what does it mean for practical purposes ?

 The turbine simulation  (ITT, torque, RPM parameters) is  wrong. It has been the case in FSX and P3D also. Rob Young overcame most of the issues in his T-Duke but not all because there is hard coding at play. For "practical purpose", it means you cannot manage the engine the way it should be managed. But the aircraft are nicely flyable if you do not care. I do care. 

Asobo has said they willl remake the modeling this year.

The default Cessna is excellent fun. The default airliners are basic but will get better with time. 

They even call teh Condition lever "Mixtu

22 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

 The turbine simulation  (ITT, torque, RPM parameters) is  wrong. It has been the case in FSX and P3D also. Rob Young overcame most of the issues in his T-Duke but not all because there is hard coding at play. For "practical purpose", it means you cannot manage the engine the way it should be managed. But the aircraft are nicely flyable if you do not care. I do care. 

Asobo has said they willl remake the modeling this year.

They even call the Condition Lever "mixture"  on some aircraft 😄

The turbo props do tend to fly more like a piston engine and do not seem to care if you exceed torque or ITT for longish periods but in some ways for new casual players that just want to jump in a TBM because it is "awesome and fast" that is probably a good thing. (just look at all the complaints about the Corsair blowing up because people want to fly without engine management)

Prop to max, throttle to max, fuel to unlimited, ignore ITT and Torque and away you go ready to cross the Atlantic.  Totally unrealistic but if that is what people want to do, it is there sim.

Edited April 15, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

Just now, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

  that is probably a good thing.

For the sake to be argumentative 😁, I don't know about that. Asobo's philosophy has been to set up a two-tier simulation with a detailed "Assistance" panel to help newbies.  So we could get both, a simplified and an accurate model.

Just now, Dominique_K said:

For the sake to be argumentative 😁, I don't know about that. Asobo's philosophy has been to set up a two-tier simulation with a detailed "Assistance" panel to help newbies.  So we could get both, a simplified and an accurate model.

oh I totally agree

the game has all the signs of being created by software developers with the odd real world pilot giving advice and no real world engineers, aeronautical or otherwise, to be seen, more realistic options would be fantastic

but to play the Devil's advocate, a lot of players want to set the game on "hardest" for ego and epeen reasons and then complain if it is too difficult to play

Edited April 15, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

25 minutes ago, gb09f said:

The default Cessna is excellent fun. The default airliners are basic but will get better with time. 

I'm actually enjoying the Airbus models from Project Mega Pack for now.

Performs tons better than the default A320.

I have the CRJ on the buy list...but I'm still not quite in the addon buying mood for this new sim yet.

On 4/13/2021 at 11:16 PM, EvidencePlz said:

Yes they are all bad. Flight models of most of them are worse than GTA 5 and takes a lot of tinkering to get them to a semi-acceptable state. Most Instruments and automation are horrible and completely wrong. In comparison the default aircraft in DCS World and XP11 are excellent. In MSFS 2020 The only way you can have a point A to B flight reliably is if you hand-fly the plane, and this is valid for not only the default but the third parties as well. The only decent aircraft in MSFS 2020 that I'll feel a bit more comfortable with flying realistically following realistic procedures in VATSIM, Pilotedge etc is the CJ4 with Navigraph and Working TItle's mod.

Your entire statement is the work of a troll. Just absolute nonsense from a person who clearly and very obviously has no actual idea of what they are talking about. Hopefully the OP will have had the sense to see it for what it is and instead listens to the people with real world experience.

1 hour ago, BusheFlyer said:

Your entire statement is the work of a troll. Just absolute nonsense from a person who clearly and very obviously has no actual idea of what they are talking about. Hopefully the OP will have had the sense to see it for what it is and instead listens to the people with real world experience.

A tad unfair I think. I feel his disappointment.

I said in a review of this sim that it was "State of the Art" in terms of graphics but "State of the Ark" when it comes to the physical modelling of the flight dynamics and weather. Worse even than FSX and FS9. I can't comment on XP11 as I don't regularly use it.

I know that many real-world Pilots like myself were expecting more from this software due to its title. Unfortunately it appears that Microsoft have dumbed it down to appeal to gamers using XBOX hardware and associated gaming controllers.

We like to think Microsoft are listening but I don't think that they're really interested. They just need to keep the bean-counters happy.

11 minutes ago, TrafficPilot said:

 

I know that many real-world Pilots like myself were expecting more from this software due to its title. Unfortunately it appears that Microsoft have dumbed it down to appeal to gamers using XBOX hardware and associated gaming controllers.

We like to think Microsoft are listening but I don't think that they're really interested. They just need to keep the bean-counters happy.

Both statements are ridiculous.

I’m not claiming to be any expert...but I do spend 4-5 hours a day an several light GA airplanes...mostly C172s. From a pure flight model/dynamics perspective, I’d put the default C172 up against any payware 172. It’s not perfect by any stretch, but I’m encouraged after the last Dev Q&A that the team continues to refine the modeling data by comparing them in actual flights. Specifically they are addressing rudder inputs needed in a climb and in response to adverse yaw induced from aileron input. 

A2A is held up as the Gold Standard, and it is very good...but it is not perfect either. I suspect it is still limited by the underlying FSX/P3D deficiencies (rudder coordination, for example)

Systems in the default planes still have a bit to go, and not just the avionics stack. The programing of the Cessna’s (steam gauge) ammeter for instance is incorrect. It acts more like a load meter than a Cessna styled ammeter. 

Decide to buy the Piaggio P149 after all. Very impressed, spectacular aircraft.

 

 

23 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Interestingly the issue some people have with this 1953 design is it is too accurate to the period - steam gauges, no GPS and a radio that will not tune modern frequencies is a no go for some people.  My actual intent for this thing is the same sort of local VFR I do in the Jabiru so none of that matters to me personally but be aware that IFR is by VOR /DME/NDB and the radio frequency increments are apparently historically correct but do not necessarily match modern base stations and nav aids.

 

The two first steam gauges and no GPS is a go for me. But the third does it mean we can't use radio communication with ATC and VOR beacons for navigation ?