FSX vs MSFS, Pros and Cons, my opinion.

[himmelhorse 1,276]

4 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

You would have to be sick to take any of this seriously.  But then sick is a good thing to my sons opinion.

Regards

bs

I have to disagree with you here.

I think that this post has raised some very concerning points and I think we should take it very, very seriously.

If you look at some of the correspondence available in several flight sim fora, one has to wonder at the multi tiered partner system, who is in favour and who is not, as well as the commercial advantages implied by that system. The Market Place too is getting very weird in my opinion.  Like the enforced Oculus and Facebook tie up, I wonder why I have to sign in to XBox to get at MSFS downloads and updates when I do not have, and do not want an XBOX.

I do not have the resources, inclination nor the motivation to delve deeply into what I am perceiving as dark places. I will state however, that I am becoming increasingly wary of what MS and Asobo and WT are actually doing behind the scenes. This does not mean that I do not appreciate their product. The Market Place strategy though, is definitely stifling "some" 3PDs and that is not good, and never will be good, for the future development of this sim platform.

This, by the way, has nothing to do with MSFS2020 and its good and bad aspects in relation to the other platforms which is what the topic started out as.

Regards

Tony

[bean_sprout 1,201]

But then again you could just watch videos or listen to this: Holiday - YouTube MusicHoliday - YouTube Music

bs

Edited May 22, 2021 by bean_sprout

[Noel 4,492]

9 hours ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

...we all like nicer graphics, that is the very last thing one should be concerned with when it comes to a sim. But with FS2020... that seems to be the main concern. Why, I wonder, if the end goal is a sim?

1. Yes, we all like nicer graphics and this is why we spend $50-$199 on P3D's core sim (insert whatever other sim you wish here), then proceed to spend many $100's to $1000's, time and effort on scenery, weather programs, flight planners, ATC addons, a multitude of airplanes, airports, etc.
2. Here's the obvious answer as to your question of 'Why':  MSFS is being ported to Xbox, which very likely will be largely populated by people less familiar w/ flight sims in general, let alone high level fidelity to 'simulation'.  In order to attract a new cadre of initiates you want to START with impressive scenery, atmospherics, and some decent basics of a 'flight sim'.  MSFS easily meets all of those requirements and a whole lot more including world-class airports w/ some ground services already, a very decent set of quite sophisticated airplanes and avionics, ATC which we all understand needs serious work, but still, ultimately, can even be used today w/ caveats.  My last many flights were nearly flawless directed by ATC, more or less.   Experienced flight simmers also desire world class scenery and atmospherics, fabulous ambient occlusion effects, PBR--again, this is why they routinely spend lots of money, configuration time and hassle to make their decades old sims be halfways decent.  So, BOTH camps need all of these basics.
3. The SDK, is the relatively easy part of MSFS to develop.  Why?  Because it's been done for decades in the other sims, there is massive knowledge about how to do it and what matters and plenty of 3PDs chomping to work w/ MS/Asobo so they can sell their wares.  But for now, MSFS needs to get the fundamentals important to newbies on consoles optimized which includes a DX-12 implementation I have read.   We can predict a segment of those newbies will become intrigued enough to seek out PC desktop simming.  Seasoned simmers should be hopinig this happens because it only fuels the future of the platform, which they have said is a 10y project ultimately.   So for now I believe MS/Asobo is doing exactly what they need to do.  Of course we all hope the rest comes to pass as well, and it's easy to see why folks here have disappointments.   But at this point in time I have no reason to believe they won't continue to develop an SDK capable of meeting the needs of 3PD's because again--nothing new here whatsoever, beyond integrating it with what they have already produced.  What they have brought to the table thusfar, the entirety of MSFS today, is nothing short of astoundingly innovative.

[jonny 6]

On 5/21/2021 at 1:56 AM, lgcharlot said:

3. Customization potential - FSX wins. You can build custom airports, scenery, and airplanes in MSFS, but not custom instrument panels, and this is a serious lack in my opinion. All of my favorite planes in FSX have custom panels

 

On 5/21/2021 at 1:56 AM, lgcharlot said:

d) No support for multiple view windows. You can stretch the sides of the main window out onto two or even three monitors, but if you "turn your head" to look out the side windows, the perspective is badly distorted. And you can't put a custom instrument panel on that second or third monitor, even if there was a way to build a custom panel.

This is the worst lack of performance for me. However with LorbySi Axis and Ohs  you can build a gauge panel and have it displayed in a webbreader at the MS-PC or at another one.

Edited May 22, 2021 by jonny
wrong spelling

[himmelhorse 1,276]

14 hours ago, Noel said:

So for now I believe MS/Asobo is doing exactly what they need to do.

Noel,

I disagree here too.

What they really need to do is,

1. fix the basics 

2. Sort out a better Partner tier system (I believe the current system is biased and is limiting access to information available to potential 3PDs)

3. Proceed to updates (not necessarily scenery)  ie DX12 improvements on ATC and flight dynamics etc

4. Proceed  to World updates.

I believe the Partner tier system is the greatest detractor for this sim from a consumer point of view.  While this system is limiting information dispersal (in my opinion) 3PDs are unable to fully develop what they specialize in. Since flight sim began most sim platform developers have concentrated on the core.  What makes P3D and XPlane etc special is the addons, be they aircraft or utilities etc

P3D and the rest are not great simulators in their basic form but they are transformed by 3PDs and can be tailored to personal taste by the consumers.

I have to admit that MSFS out of the box is something incredibly good, basically functional (with bugs ... to be expected to some extent) and extraordinarily beautiful as far as scenery goes.

That said, I believe that the consumers are being deprived by developers like RXP who appear to being starved for critical information. This is supposition on my part but it is fairly obvious to me at least. There are so many utility and aircraft developers who are not "in the hunt" so to speak and one has to question why.  This may sound somewhat like a conspiracy theory but I do not think so.  Whether it is the SDK or the Partner tier system is hard for an outsider to sort out.  If anyone can point out FACTS that destroy my thoughts, then I heartily ask them to do so.  I am going a little crazy trying to work it all out and somewhat non-plussed as to why I need to.

Regards

Tony 

[Noel 4,492]

17 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

P3D and the rest are not great simulators in their basic form but they are transformed by 3PDs and can be tailored to personal taste by the consumers.

I have to admit that MSFS out of the box is something incredibly good, basically functional (with bugs ... to be expected to some extent) and extraordinarily beautiful as far as scenery goes.

That's just it though Tony--P3D and the rest really are pathetic in their basic form and w/o 3PD's would have died a long time ago.  Seasoned users of the other sims have a long history of needing to buy 3PD content and sometimes lots of it.  This is in stark contrast to MSFS which as you say is incredibly good out of the box, for about $60 US.  When MSFS began its infamous FPS drops a few updates back I left for a week or two and went back to full time P3D.  In order to cope w/ the dreary fake land-class world in P3D, literally the cartoon representation quite weak facsimile of the real world below and the atmosphere as well I ended up flying from dusk thru dawn only, where visuals are restricted to dawn/dusk sky colors and night lighting, and of course nice 3PD airports while in the PMDG birds.  Truthfully, to get the liquid smooth video vsync'd to 30Hz I literally had to disable ORBX NCA and SCA in order to fly the NGXu into KSAN-HD and KSFO-HD, and dial back autogen to Sparse or Medium, LOD and tesselation to Medium.  It's great to have totally smooth animation of everything and again it doesn't matter in the wee hours.   I did really enjoy my time back in P3D, but to be 100% honest, I've not been back once since the FPS drops largely was resolved and that was maybe a month or so ago now.  And even in P3D it was FSCaptain that kept my head in the game as it were.  Never did one flight w/o it and that was to try to keep my pilotage score up etc.  I fly much more now in MSFS than I ever did in P3D as it's for me far more engaging already, right out of the box, still and despite its shortcomings.  My sense is that 3rd party content will be greatly reduced in MSFS compared to the other sims as it's just not needed nearly as much or at all for many, and likely especially more casual new Xbox users, some of which will go on to desktop Windows flight simulation.   So once again, for a new sim porting to Xbox the priority should really be what attracts new users in that domain.  After that, the SDK can be improved to accomodate the old cadre of developers who still produce for P3D, and my guess is they'll be here as able.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

22 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

Regardess of the SDK argument going on here, I think what is basically wrong with MSFS is the obsession with updates and these updates are a mixed bag of updates to things that are not really necessary, fixes and breakages.   

Well, another update is coming shortly, so I guess we will see what the harbinger brings.

 

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Noel,

I hear what you are saying, I really enjoyed P3D and XPlane in the past too .... I still do.

My biggest gripe with MSFS is the performance issue.   I get probably 3-4 flights out of 10 with absolutely no problems.  The other 6 or 7 times are a dead loss because of performance.  On the good days I am getting an average I suppose or 40 -50FPS and on the bad days I am getting 10-15,  I also still have the return from pause, half throttle and flaps syndrome. It is, however, the sheer intermittency of this that is driving me crazy. Like you, I revert to P3D and  XPlane with priority on XPlane.  This does not prevent me visiting MSFS every day. 

That of course, has nothing to do with the fact that (and this is my priority) new and fully developed aircraft and utilities like RXP (I consider this essential for P3D and Xplane) are not coming to this platform in droves. We virtually only have the Aerosoft CRJ, which is somewhat of a compromise in itself, (I believe from comments already posted .... I do not own this aircraft) and the rest are hotchpotch port overs or like the Bredok and Captain Sim efforts.

I have not got the technical expertise to judge accurately whether it is the SDK, the Partner tier system, something else or, even a combination of all three, which is actually hampering new or existing Developers.  

Further, apart from the small niggle of very outdated satellite imagery  for Australia where I fly, the Scenery is excellent and unsurpassed.  That however, does not make a platform "perfect"  The sad fact is that the quality of the aircraft is nowhere near (yet) the quality of the scenery.  Selfish I know, but I want a professional GTN and some much better quality aircraft. I know that MS and Asobo are not going to provide this, and I just wonder why they are hampering developers who specialize in these products.

All of the above is personal supposition ... I have no "facts" nor access to facts, to back it up.  

Regards

Tony

 

 

[himmelhorse 1,276]

8 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Well, another update is coming shortly, so I guess we will see what the harbinger brings.

 

I am actually really looking forward to this in the hope that it fixes my performance issues.  If it does that, I will be happy to grapple with whatever else they throw at me in this update. LOL

Tony

[Noel 4,492]

48 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

Noel,

I hear what you are saying, I really enjoyed P3D and XPlane in the past too .... I still do.

My biggest gripe with MSFS is the performance issue.   I get probably 3-4 flights out of 10 with absolutely no problems.  The other 6 or 7 times are a dead loss because of performance.  On the good days I am getting an average I suppose or 40 -50FPS and on the bad days I am getting 10-15,  I also still have the return from pause, half throttle and flaps syndrome. It is, however, the sheer intermittency of this that is driving me crazy. Like you, I revert to P3D and  XPlane with priority on XPlane.  This does not prevent me visiting MSFS every day. 

That of course, has nothing to do with the fact that (and this is my priority) new and fully developed aircraft and utilities like RXP (I consider this essential for P3D and Xplane) are not coming to this platform in droves. We virtually only have the Aerosoft CRJ, which is somewhat of a compromise in itself, (I believe from comments already posted .... I do not own this aircraft) and the rest are hotchpotch port overs or like the Bredok and Captain Sim efforts.

I have not got the technical expertise to judge accurately whether it is the SDK, the Partner tier system, something else or, even a combination of all three, which is actually hampering new or existing Developers.  

Further, apart from the small niggle of very outdated satellite imagery  for Australia where I fly, the Scenery is excellent and unsurpassed.  That however, does not make a platform "perfect"  The sad fact is that the quality of the aircraft is nowhere near (yet) the quality of the scenery.  Selfish I know, but I want a professional GTN and some much better quality aircraft. I know that MS and Asobo are not going to provide this, and I just wonder why they are hampering developers who specialize in these products.

All of the above is personal supposition ... I have no "facts" nor access to facts, to back it up.  

Regards

Tony

 

 

I agree with everything you're saying Tony.  My point is mainly that the agenda of MS/A is focused on readying for Xbox and all that supporting in Windows 10 and Xbox ant that is no small feat.  They have to think about getting the Xbox market up and running and w/ a big splash and I wish them well in that endeavor. *Should* they have changed their priorities?  You know to me this is like armchair quarterbacking in football.  Are their people participating in these threads who have insight into or are MS/A insiders w/ the real facts about why they prioritized what they did?  Perhaps their assessment of disappointed 'hard-core flight sim enthusiasts,' let them conclude these folks will tolerate not having a robust SDK released because our base product is sufficient, if not fully developed yet of course.

[lgcharlot 22]

I have to give a huge "Thank You" to SD_Flyer, for pointing out to me that there were some inaccuracies in my original post: there are indeed helicopters and gliders in development for MSFS, and I've spent the past couple of days playing with three of them: The Schempp-Hirth Discus-2b and DG-808 sailplanes, and the Airbus H-135 heli. To make flying a glider a "more complete" experience in MSFS, you need to add Kinetic Assistant and LittleNavMap - these are 3rd-party add-ons that provide several new functions related to glider flight. Kinetic Assistant lets you map thermal updrafts wherever you want (or if you want to fly in the Alps in Europe, you can download pre-made data files for thermals). LittleNavMap is primarily a Flight Planner, but it can export CSV files of "User Points", with tags that define thermal updrafts that Kinetic Assistant uses. Kinetic Assistant can get your glider into the air with either a ground winch, or another player on-line flying a tow plane, or an AI tow plane (the Asobo Extra 300 and the DA-40 are supported). The tow cable isn't visualized, as it is in FSX, but the experience of being towed aloft in the DG-808 by the DA-40 feels very similar to being towed in the DG-808S by the Maule Orion tow plane in FSX. The DG-808 is more "complete" than the Discus 2b as of 5/23/2021, and I assume it is simply a port of the FSX plane, with the cockpit and flight model updated for MSFS. If you loved sailplanes in FSX, the DG-808 in MSFS is a joy to fly. The cockpit graphics and surface textures are not as clear and crisp as the new Asobo-provided planes that come with MSFS, but the important part - the flight dynamics - appear to be an accurate conversion of the FSX DG-808 into MSFS. One other thing about Kinetic Assistant and thermals: This software is still more or less in Alpha test, and it's got some quirks: it tends to make you glider pitch up and down quite violently - far more so than thermals in FSX did. Maybe I have the updraft velocity set too high, and I need to reduce it? I'll have to try that in the next few days. It's buggy, but at least it's a good start.

As for the Airbus H-135: I was never a proficient helicopter pilot in FSX, and I probably will never be very good with heli's in MSFS, but I can say this: The H-135 behaves a lot like the Bell Jetranger in FSX, The same controls are used, and the aircraft responds about the same to movements of the joystick and throttle. Engine RPM is governed by the AI, whereas in a real helicopter, the twist grip on the collective would control engine power. So the throttle control in this sim only controls blade pitch and therefore vertical thrust. The H-135 has a twin turboshaft powerplant, and it takes the sim a surprisingly long time to go through the startup sequence after you press "CTRL-E", and this reflects real helicopters. There is no rotor brake control that I could find, so the necessity of unlocking the rotor brake before startup, that the Eurocopter in FSX has, is a non-issue. The H-135 is surprisingly stable, with no tendency to want to flip over on it's back like some of the 'copters in FSX did. I don't know if this is a reflection of the real-world H-135, or an inaccuracy of the flight dynamics, but the H-135 is surprisingly easy to fly, even for someone like me who is much more likely to crash a helicopter than land it safely and smoothly. Hovering stationary in ground-effect is difficult, as I imagine it would be in a real helicopter. Trying to keep the helicopter still at, say, 15 feet off the ground, is very tricky. It constantly wants to veer away from where it is, and you might suddenly find yourself going backwards or sideways at an alarming rate of speed. Real helicopters have to be kept under control every second, and this sim certainly models that behavior. You can't just lift off by pulling some collective, and then expect the machine to sit still , 20 feet in the air, over the same spot while you go to the kitchen to get something to eat.It's constantly requiring small corrections with the stick, rudder pedals, and collective to stay over one spot. How Coast Guard pilots manage to do this in big HH-52A Seaguard and HH-60J Jayhawk helicopters, winching shipwreck victims out of the water or off the decks of sinking yachts or fishing vessels in 70 knot gale winds, is a mystery to me.

I have one other comment to make about MSFS, regarding stability of the software itself: A lot of people have complained about Crash-to-Desktop problems with MSFS over the last 9 months since the initial release. I've had more than my fair share of these AppCrash and OOM crashes, until last week. What happened was, my system became so unstable, even just running a web browser or watching videos, that I began to suspect that the SSD was beginning to fail. So I removed it, and re-installed Windows 10 and all of the software, including MSFS and FSX, on an old 3tB hard drive that I had lying around in my spare parts drawer. It's a Seagate 5400 rpm drive that came out of my last computer, and I didn't really have a use for it, until now. All I can say is that I have had only 1 CTD in about the last 30 hours of flying MSFS, whereas I was getting them every two to three hours when the sim was running of that SSD. The sim loads a little slower than it did on the SSD, but it seems way, WAY more stable and reliable now. Maybe I just got a "bad" SSD? It was a Seagate Barracuda 500 gB model, cost me about $90 when I bought it a year ago. But it's going into the spare parts box; I'll never be able to trust it to run Windows 10 as the "C:\" operating system partition again. It was only a year old! Aren't SSD's supposed to last 4 to 5 years at least?

Edited May 24, 2021 by lgcharlot