Not sure why people say that this is just a VFR sim

[Gazzareth 808]

6 minutes ago, fppilot said:

I did not speak to FSX or P3D default data.  What I said was that GPS technology and nearly current Navdata have been infused into sims for over 10 years.  So what was the problem with MSFS.  It is there to reach out and touch, and has been for years.  Garmin Trainers, Navagraph.  They did not embody either, or an equivilent in the initial release or do-date.

Navigraph works just fine, I've been running it in FS for months.

With respect to Garmin I really don't understand why they made them the way they are, hopefully WT will sort them out so they represent the real units. They've certainly made a good start on the PL21...

G

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

3 hours ago, Gazzareth said:

With respect to Garmin I really don't understand why they made them the way they are, hopefully WT will sort them out so they represent the real units. They've certainly made a good start on the PL21...

G

 

The "official" reason for the minimalistic Garmins was they did not want to step on the toes of third party developers. They later realised this was a mistake and decided to improve them.

As for Navigraph style integration that is an interesting one. MS implementing a Navigraph style Jepperson chart access (free or subbed) would probably send Navigraph bankrupt unless it was very limited in functionality, and a limited version would generate a lot of forum hate about how limited in functionality it was.  On the other hand building in an interface for one specific third party interface, no matter how popular, would probably unfairly advantage Navigraph.  Either way is going to be problematic (unlike implementing real world METAR which should be straightforward).

Edited May 6, 2021 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[Ricardo41 5,949]

8 hours ago, Bigbluss said:

I've been using MSFS extensively for the past few months and I have to say, I'm confused about why people say this is a sightseeing sim only.

There is a lot of chest-thumping, hyperbole and self-aggrandizing on this forum. Best to simply ignore it and enjoy the sim.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Ricardo41

[Gazzareth 808]

3 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

 

The "official" reason for the minimalistic Garmins was they did not want to step on the toes of third party developers. They later realised this was a mistake and decided to improve them.

As for Navigraph style integration that is an interesting one. MS implementing a Navigraph style Jepperson chart access (free or subbed) would probably send Navigraph bankrupt unless it was very limited in functionality, and a limited version would generate a lot of forum hate about how limited in functionality it was.  On the other hand building in an interface for one specific third party interface, no matter how popular, would probably unfairly advantage Navigraph.  Either way is going to be problematic (unlike implementing real world METAR which should be straightforward).

Definitely a mistake with the Garmins, think by the time I was following the beta they were already talking about adding features. As much as I like RXP the fact it isn't updatable unless Garmin issue new data is a pain. Interestingly WT seem keen for 3rd party developers to be able to use and/mod their stuff...

Did think the same about Navigraph,  although from what I understand they have more data than NAVBlue. They also allow integration with apps outside of FS which isn't so easy with NB.

All that said I find it weird that they then completely freeze out 3rd party weather devs and/or prevented any other apps from reading the weather properly. They also appear to have zero interest in sorting that one out...

... then again, my most recent flight in P3D ActiveSky dumped a flat cloud layer below me and managed to look like it was the 1990's again - so perhaps that's why!!...

G

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

13 minutes ago, Gazzareth said:

then again, my most recent flight in P3D ActiveSky dumped a flat cloud layer below me and managed to look like it was the 1990's again - so perhaps that's why!!...

Maybe that was a layer of stratus which does have a relatively flat profile. Clouds come in all shapes and sizes from cirrus through cumulus to cumulonimbus and the aforementioned rather boring stratus. 😉

[CFIJose 5,485]

With MSFS, I manage to simulate VFR, IFR, and even ILLEGAL. 😀

To the OP, "don't sweat the small stuff and enjoy your flights."

[Gazzareth 808]

53 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Maybe that was a layer of stratus which does have a relatively flat profile. Clouds come in all shapes and sizes from cirrus through cumulus to cumulonimbus and the aforementioned rather boring stratus. 😉

Looked like 5/8 cumulus clouds that were flat rather than a stratus layer tbh ... perhaps a new type of cloud, I'll call it fugly. Funnily enough went back to p3d because I was missing ActiveSky & the Lear 35. At least the Lear performed well...

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

Two reasons, i'd say:

1. The ATC is pretty broken when it comes to IFR, and will issue all sorts of weird instructions.

2. It's very hard to actually create low visibility conditions.

Add to that the fact that when a lot of people say "IFR", what they really mean is "airliners", and the fact that people flying IFR want study level equipment which currently is either simply unavailable or downright blocked by the developers. Whilst all of these issues can be mitigated in one way or another, P3D is simply better at this, so doing IFR in FS2020 becomes a frustrating experience.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

30 minutes ago, Gazzareth said:

Looked like 5/8 cumulus clouds that were flat rather than a stratus layer tbh ... perhaps a new type of cloud, I'll call it fugly. Funnily enough went back to p3d because I was missing ActiveSky & the Lear 35. At least the Lear performed well...

If you're using AS and ASCA that combo is probably as good as you can get. Maybe report it to Hi-Fi if you feel it is not a correct depiction. Working out the cloud type from a METAR report will never be 100% correct.

[Gazzareth 808]

10 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If you're using AS and ASCA that combo is probably as good as you can get. Maybe report it to Hi-Fi if you feel it is not a correct depiction. Working out the cloud type from a METAR report will never be 100% correct.

It was, but I'll see if it happens again and actually get a screenshot of it and report it. Although only tend to be doing one flight in 20 in p3d anyway, so odds are I'll only see it if it's a bug..

 

G

[AnkH 2,262]

Add the fact that default ATC constantly assignes you the 180° wrong runway for take offs and landings and you can have a small, little glimpse why people still tend to call MSFS a VFR-only sim. 

BTW: for me, it all depends on addons. With Navigraph and proper addons such as the CRJ and the FBW A320N, the argument is greatly reduced, but for some aspects it is still somehow true (see above ATC issue). Then, and I think many are on the same boat here, I often use "IFR" equivalent to "tube-liner flying". And this is really no big joy with the default tubeliners included...

[Gazzareth 808]

51 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Add the fact that default ATC constantly assignes you the 180° wrong runway for take offs and landings and you can have a small, little glimpse why people still tend to call MSFS a VFR-only sim. 

BTW: for me, it all depends on addons. With Navigraph and proper addons such as the CRJ and the FBW A320N, the argument is greatly reduced, but for some aspects it is still somehow true (see above ATC issue). Then, and I think many are on the same boat here, I often use "IFR" equivalent to "tube-liner flying". And this is really no big joy with the default tubeliners included...

Default ATC is useless, but have never been impressed with it in any Sim. FSX & P3D I always used to use Radar Contact, now using Pilot2ATC for p3d & FS - much better than the default and you can assign your own runway if required.

Can manage IFR in WT CJ4 & modded Longitude (need to be more careful the FMS doesn't send you in wrong direction in that though). Navigraph and charts definitely makes a big difference.

G

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Gazzareth

[fppilot 4,368]

7 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

The "official" reason for the minimalistic Garmins was they did not want to step on the toes of third party developers.

They have smashed the toes of third party developers by refusing to release an SDK that would foster third party avionics development!  And we, MSFS customers, are limping around in the sim as another result!

Edited May 6, 2021 by fppilot

[Gilandred 690]

44 minutes ago, fppilot said:

They have smashed the toes of third party developers by refusing to release an SDK that would foster third party avionics development!  And we, MSFS customers, are limping around in the sim as another result!

I’m confused by this statement.  There are now very functional Proline avionics (Working Title), FMCs (WT CJ4 and FBW A320), Garmin GNS units (PMS50 mod), and Garmin 1000/3000 units (again by WT).  None of these freeware developers seem particularly hampered by the SDK.

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

11 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

I’m confused by this statement.  There are now very functional Proline avionics (Working Title), FMCs (WT CJ4 and FBW A320), Garmin GNS units (PMS50 mod), and Garmin 1000/3000 units (again by WT).  None of these freeware developers seem particularly hampered by the SDK.

I can only speak about the GNS530 and the G1000 units, since those are the only ones i've used from the ones you mentioned. What i can say is that they are incredibly limited, and only resemble the actual units. There is a lot of missing functionality, especially in the G1000. Neither of them can show airways, for example, because the sim does not expose the navdata fully to them. Sure, some people might not care about that missing functionality, but it doesn't mean it can be ignored.

Meanwhile, developers like Reality-XP are actively being blocked from delivering their products to FS2020.