Is MSFS 2020 worth the hassle of a move from FSX-SE?

[andyjohnston.net 617]

If (when) you switch to MSFS, you will find like many others here have done, that you will never look back.  Reverting would be like going from FSX back to FS2.  Take one last look at your favourite/home area in FSX, then load up the same in MSFS, you won't recognize it.  I have a flight saved where I am literally parked in my driveway, ready for takeoff.

[Bobsk8 12,683]

25 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

If (when) you switch to MSFS, you will find like many others here have done, that you will never look back.  Reverting would be like going from FSX back to FS2.  Take one last look at your favourite/home area in FSX, then load up the same in MSFS, you won't recognize it.  I have a flight saved where I am literally parked in my driveway, ready for takeoff.

I agree, MSFS is like addicting drug. Once you try it you are hooked. 

[cobalt 798]

2 hours ago, mtr75 said:

Depends on what kind of flying you do. IFR long haul in heavy metal? Nope. VFR bopping around the countryside in a 172? Oh boy, hurry up and change!

With all respect (of course), I have to disagree. MSFS is superior for all kinds of flight, not just low-and-slow VFR. I have flown many hours in MSFS in heavies, and while there are certainly some challenges in getting used to the new sim, for me there is no going back to FSX, ever.  

[Bobsk8 12,683]

28 minutes ago, cobalt said:

With all respect (of course), I have to disagree. MSFS is superior for all kinds of flight, not just low-and-slow VFR. I have flown many hours in MSFS in heavies, and while there are certainly some challenges in getting used to the new sim, for me there is no going back to FSX, ever.  

I wonder why some think that the only IFR flights are  flown with airliners. Every flight I do with GA aircraft is filed and flown IFR, every one, and I do about 14 flights a week minimum and none to the same airports. I flew tube liners for years in FSX and P3D, and frankly once I was comfortable with the 737-767, Q400, and programing the FMC,  I got bored with it. Sitting in the cockpit watching the world go by at 30,000 feet while the AP flew the plane, I decided that the hardest thing was to stay awake. It is a fact, that the majority of airline flights today, the pilot flies the plane to around 600 feet AGL and the AP flies the rest of the flight, sometimes even to a Cat 3 landing. 

Now I fly low and slow, fly all kinds of approaches, get to see hundreds of different airports, and have a blast, especially doing a VOR-DME approach to minimums. 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Bobsk8

[mtr75 653]

3 hours ago, cobalt said:

With all respect (of course), I have to disagree. MSFS is superior for all kinds of flight, not just low-and-slow VFR. I have flown many hours in MSFS in heavies, and while there are certainly some challenges in getting used to the new sim, for me there is no going back to FSX, ever.  

I’m glad you feel that way. 👍

[mtr75 653]

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I wonder why some think that the only IFR flights are  flown with airliners. Every flight I do with GA aircraft is filed and flown IFR, every one, and I do about 14 flights a week minimum and none to the same airports. I flew tube liners for years in FSX and P3D, and frankly once I was comfortable with the 737-767, Q400, and programing the FMC,  I got bored with it. Sitting in the cockpit watching the world go by at 30,000 feet while the AP flew the plane, I decided that the hardest thing was to stay awake. It is a fact, that the majority of airline flights today, the pilot flies the plane to around 600 feet AGL and the AP flies the rest of the flight, sometimes even to a Cat 3 landing. 

Now I fly low and slow, fly all kinds of approaches, get to see hundreds of different airports, and have a blast, especially doing a VOR-DME approach to minimums. 

Couldnt agree more. I don’t file for every flight, but I do all of my flying in light GA aircraft in any sim I fly. I hand fly, including full approaches. Single pilot IFR in small planes is a blast. I don’t know why anyone would want to sit there turning knobs all day long on a sim, but to each their own. 

[threebears 14]

12 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I wonder why some think that the only IFR flights are  flown with airliners. Every flight I do with GA aircraft is filed and flown IFR, every one, and I do about 14 flights a week minimum and none to the same airports. I flew tube liners for years in FSX and P3D, and frankly once I was comfortable with the 737-767, Q400, and programing the FMC,  I got bored with it. Sitting in the cockpit watching the world go by at 30,000 feet while the AP flew the plane, I decided that the hardest thing was to stay awake. It is a fact, that the majority of airline flights today, the pilot flies the plane to around 600 feet AGL and the AP flies the rest of the flight, sometimes even to a Cat 3 landing. 

Now I fly low and slow, fly all kinds of approaches, get to see hundreds of different airports, and have a blast, especially doing a VOR-DME approach to minimums. 

I have ordered another SSD, and am probably going to upgrade my GPU from 1050ti to 1660ti but decided to stick with FSX-SE for the time being until I see how much better it can be with those upgrades.  Bobsk8, mtr75 and others get to the nub of my dilemma about upgrades of sim platform and hardware.  First of all I can't (and don't want to) spend hours at a time 'simming' especially when I spend a good proportion of the time available waiting for Windows Update to release bandwidth (LOL).  So I don't spend much time pootling about 'low and slow' in 172s and Beech twins, but when I do I want the scenery to be as realistic as possible, not a noticeably computer game generic scenery.  Therefore I 'fly' mostly in the UK, where I live and am familiar with the geography.  I use ORBX sceneries for that.  One exception is Innsbruck (also ORBX) - and who doesn't try that from time to time - but from somewhere nearby like Salzburg or Munich because of time constraints. For me the challenges are the departure (from stand) and arrival (to stand) phases and not in the cruise phase.  I 'fly' alone and do not practice 'failures'. Because of time constraints I do a lot of 1 hour rotations between UK airports and planned 'circuits' around selected airports in the UK.  I use Jepperson 'plates', and published information for SIDS/STARS and ILS approaches. I mostly 'fly' PMDG 737 and Majestic Dash 8-Q400 and programme their FMCs as best I can, I use Active Sky Next or ORBX weather.  I have been an aviation enthusiast all my (long) life, and have had the (now sadly lost) privilege of in-flight deck time on BAC 1-11, DH Comet 4B,  Airspeed Ambassador, Boeing 747 (including approach and touch-down at both Heathrow and Kennedy).  I have had a few hours club lessons, and time in full motion commercial sims.  My son is a current UK airline pilot, so simming is an intellectual challenge and more than a game; I know I will only get out of it what I am prepared to invest, in money and time, and there are limits on both.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

meh ... for me at least, this is vastly better than anything FSX ... 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[hansb57 493]

I dont see why you would call going to MSFS a "hassle""

Pay, download, no internal tweaks, download the add ons you want and run it without problems.

The biggest hasle is keeping up with add ons updates. But there lies a task for the respective developers.

Yes, there are things that need improvement.

[mtr75 653]

6 hours ago, threebears said:

 I mostly 'fly' PMDG 737 and Majestic Dash 8-Q400 and programme their FMCs as best I can, I use Active Sky Next or ORBX weather.

My understanding is that there isn’t the same level of “study-level” airliners in MSFS. My guess is that you wouldn’t get a lot out of moving to MSFS. Me flying 152s around the Caribbean, oh man, forget it. The stock scenery in MSFS is as good as any pay ware you can get for P3D or FSX. And MSFS has upgraded the UK scenery, which I’m sure is astounding. But if you’re flying tubes and are generally happy with the aircraft, scenery and performance, I would probably recommend staying where you are. 

[cobalt 798]

6 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

meh ... for me at least, this is vastly better than anything FSX ... 

 

 

But you realize of course that this is just "eye candy"!   Great video. Well done.

[Noel 4,498]

36 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

The stock scenery in MSFS is as good as any pay ware you can get for P3D or FSX.

Nope--the stock scenery is vastly better than anything you can get for P3D/FSX--save TruEarth of course, but then it's $$ and massive storage and exceedingly limited.  Why is it better?  Because it's uber close to the impression one gets from flying over the same areas in the real world--anywhere in the real world.  Orbx regionals are absolute garbage in terms of mimicing reality, and that contributes massively to 'immersion'.  Next comes the absolute garbage for default airports from the smallest strips on up in P3D/FSX, whereas in MSFS ALL of them are remarkably good right out of the box.  Follow all of this up with the default planes in MSFS including very full featured avionics.  The Citation Longitude & TBM930, stock, are fabulous pieces of work in their own right.   I am a decades long user of P3D/FSX and already, unmodded, w/o 'study level' airware, I've had vastly better experiences and use MSFS far more than I ever did the others and that is largely due to the immersion factor.  And, it's in its infancy still.  ATC is starting to get it right much more often, IFR flights are the rule w/ RNAV/ILS/VOR approach procedures, hand flown or via the AP, it's already there in spades.

Here are some examples you find everywhere on the planet of that 'stock scenery':

Some rain squalls near my home town near Denver CO:

Sarzana IT, near Cique Terre:

Unfortunately PostImg isn't playing nice so no more pics but you get the IMMERSION idea.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Noel

[mtr75 653]

28 minutes ago, cobalt said:

But you realize of course that this is just "eye candy"!   Great video. Well done.

I wouldn’t agree that it’s just eye candy. First of all, did you say the same of FSX vs Flight Simulator 4.0? That’s the approximate generational difference between FSX and MSFS. 
 

Here is a reminder:

 

[mtr75 653]

6 minutes ago, Noel said:

Nope--the stock scenery is vastly better than anything you can get for P3D/FSX--save TruEarth of course, but then it's $$ and massive storage and exceedingly limited.

Actually you got me. I agree. 

[GCBraun 2,392]

The biggest hassle is to keep flying on FSX...