I honestly think the OP is now running away and wipe-cleaning any remains of his MFS or X-plane Install while desperately starting DCS World and go bombing Normandy...

These civil simmers are... uncivilized ... 🤣

Anyway I should say that there will surely be more than enough reasons to stay with MFS as more detailed and high quality addons start to emerge.

The FBW A320 can already be a joy to use, even if lacks features from the real Airbus, and there are other addons which surely are worth the use already.

It will only become better, that's what I think ...

45 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

You are missing out on a much improved experience... try the Rob Young Turbo Bonanza with the WT G1000 nxi... really nice!

Is it stable? I read some folks saying it was the cause of some of their issues, but I guess that could be fixed now.

1 minute ago, neil0311 said:

Is it stable? I read some folks saying it was the cause of some of their issues, but I guess that could be fixed now.

The Rob Young mod can cause animation problems on other planes (workaround exists..) but the G1000 is pretty solid, in my flying.

6 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Though if you were going to fly that much per year you'd invest and purchase your own aircraft as it would be cheaper in the long run.

thats what I did, I have more hours in a real aircraft than in MSFS, yet I totally enjoy MSFS because in VR the immersion is fantastic. for me, it is the total package that counts, not a few single details re. flight model here, autopilot there, even though desirable and that will improve over time anyway. the other sims can have the best flight model all they want, I still don't believe I am flying in a real airplane in those.

49 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Anyway I should say that there will surely be more than enough reasons to stay with MFS as more detailed and high quality addons start to emerge.

The FBW A320 can already be a joy to use, even if lacks features from the real Airbus, and there are other addons which surely are worth the use already.

It will only become better, that's what I think ...

I think you’re correct. The default airliners in FS8, FS9, FSX, P3D were always pretty basic. MSFT wasn’t going to do the amount of coding and testing to make them “serious” quality. That’s where 3rd parties like PMDG, Level-D, CaptainSim, etc always filled a niche.

If there’s a legitimate criticism of Asobo that I’d go along with, it’s that they didn’t provide the right level of SDK and other dev support for 3rd parties. Folks like A2A are essentially sitting it out because of it. 

32 minutes ago, neil0311 said:

they didn’t provide the right level of SDK and other dev support for 3rd parties.

I do not have proof, but I have been lead to believe that the SDK does not provide access to some of the internals of the sim, and it is still in flux.. which limits what 3rd parties can do and also what they are willing to invest in, for now..

12 hours ago, Bigbluss said:

Hey all,

I'm quite new to civilian flight sims but have a fair number of hours on modules like the Huey, Mi8, F/A-18C and F-14A and B in DCS. I am curious, are the likes of PMDG, JustFlight and the upcoming Fenix regarded as roughly equals to the aircraft in DCS in terms of depth of simulation? I mean things like electrical systems, hydraulics, computer systems etc.

I'm not asking which is better at all of course, I'm just interested on a technical level about depth of simulation. I have and love both.

I guess it's more my inner-nerd being curious about what's going on below the hood of both.

So, to answer this question instead of going off into a row about whose favourite toy aeroplane game 'am the bestest', As I'm sure you are aware, DCS has a lot of very realistic add-on aeroplanes, however, even in DCS there are some which are more in-depth than others, for example, one of my favourites in DCS is the MiG-29, but this is in fact one of the simpler add-ons, with a non-clickable VC and somewhat simplified weaponry and system. Still one of my favourites though. On the other side of the coin you have things like the A-10 Thunderbolt II in DCS, which is one where you better be prepared to do a lot of reading up on weaponry and guidance systems if you want to be able to use it to its full abilities, and learn how to fly it down in the weeds to use terrain masking as well of course.

These two extremes pretty much sum up civilian sims such as XPlane, MSFS, P3D and FSX etc. So as with DCS, where the price of something is often somewhat reflective of how complex and detailed the thing is and how much of a campaign there is with it, the same is largely true for those peacetime sims, where most of the time you get what you pay for. The exception to that is the Majestic Dash 8 Q-400 airliner, wyhere you get a hell of a lot more than what you pay for with that thing.

So, when companies such as FSL, PMDG, A2A, Majestic etc have a go at making something for those sims they're - more often than not - every bit as good as anything you could get for DCS, for example, A2A GA aeroplanes go so far as to have a maintenance hangar where you can fix and tune the engines and stuff like that and when flying their add-ons, you will notice quirks of the thing which you would recognise if you flew the real aeroplane, such as certain bits of the panel vibrating and making certain sounds when at a few specific engine RPM settings and stuff like that. Likewise, the Flight Sim Labs Airbus A320 actually models the fuel, hydraulic liquid, electrical current and such, plus all of the related plumbing and wiring for those systems, so many effects you see in their FSX/P3D A320 are not merely 'canned' effects, but actual behaviour which is affected by other systems, for example you will see the voltages drop on the gauges when certain other systems kick in, and this is a dynamic occurrence, not a 'canned' effect.

The forthcoming Fenix A320 for MSFS will model that kind of thing too, since it is in fact based on the professional training sim version of an A320 simulation found in ProSim, where that kind of thing is not merely nice to have, but actually essential for realistic training.

But, all this aside, there are many add-ons for those civil sims which don't quite push the envelope to those kind of levels, yet are still very good, and those are a bit like that MiG-29 in DCS - it's not one of the super-duper realistic DCS add-on warplanes, but it's realistic enough and certainly is one of the most fun ones to fly in that sim:

Then again, this Sukhoi pictured below is in P3D; it's amazingly realistic, and, if you look on the ramp below it, you might just be able to make out a MiG-29-UB amongst all that other military stuff down there, so who says you can't please both camps?

Edited August 22, 20214 yr by Chock

8 hours ago, neil0311 said:

If there’s a legitimate criticism of Asobo that I’d go along with, it’s that they didn’t provide the right level of SDK and other dev support for 3rd parties. Folks like A2A are essentially sitting it out because of it. 

I've been asking that question myself - not seeing a definite move of A2A into MFS ( ? )  Whazzup ?

Maybe they're taking their time to consider a totally external flight model, like what is in operation when we use Aerowinx PSX with MFS, or even the FlyInside Bell 47.

Apparently the upcoming Fénix A320 is using MFS's native flight dynamics ... Let' see ho it handles it ...

So far I am fine with the PMDG dc-6.

 

6 hours ago, jcomm said:

I've been asking that question myself - not seeing a definite move of A2A into MFS ( ? )  Whazzup ?

Maybe they're taking their time to consider a totally external flight model, like what is in operation when we use Aerowinx PSX with MFS, or even the FlyInside Bell 47.

Apparently the upcoming Fénix A320 is using MFS's native flight dynamics ... Let' see ho it handles it ...

So far I am fine with the PMDG dc-6.

 

Randazzo from PMDG called SU5 " the circus car of fun that is the unexpected MSFS SU5.". It sounds as if he is tiring of fixing things that updates break, and I imagine A2A is probably waiting until the dust settles before they release anything. 

On 8/21/2021 at 11:07 AM, sd_flyer said:

I own, flew, and instructed in some stock MSFS airplanes. Those that I familiar with are actually pretty good for default aircraft. Steam gauges are pretty accurate. Yes G1000/GNS come  out with  in a bad shape  but have been going through improvement. ATC is not perfect, but way better than stock XP11. Real time weather has improved  significantly  since release . Yes there is still room for improvement but  I wouldn't call it bad.  There are some problems of aircraft behaviour on the ground during crosswind but Asobo aware and fixing in it. 

 

I don't have to imagine anything I flew PMDG DC-6 before update V and right after V. There few bugs that has been fixed by PMDG very quickly and other by hot fixes I can't really complain.

 

 

If you have ever flown anything with glass cockpit in real life then you'd agree that avionics in this game are abysmal, not even remotely deserving of the title simulator. Then again yes, there are mods that try to improve on it, including the garmin mod by working tittle, but they seem unable to overcome some core game debilitating issues.

I know some people have had zero issues with the game, but that is clearly not my case or that of many others. In my case the biggest issue is having updates that break addons (CRJ/a320). Update should not be mandatory, should be beta tested properly and a rollback to a previous version should be allowed. Without this I won't be spending another dime on the marketplace.

Besides that I agree that progress has been made and I do enjoy flying with it heavily modded. I like to fly airline style ops and I would have less to complain if flying steam gauges and vfr, like you seem to suggest. A couple of small things I just don't understand why Ms doesn't fix like a tcas system on multiplayer, weather to match atis, atc instructions etc. The multiplayer groups are also extremely buggy, my friends will randomly disappear and we all just switched to live/open. Overall I do think its improving slowly, but the mandatory updates are a bust for me and many others.

 

1 hour ago, shadow133 said:

If you have ever flown anything with glass cockpit in real life then you'd agree that avionics in this game are abysmal, not even remotely deserving of the title simulator. Then again yes, there are mods that try to improve on it, including the garmin mod by working tittle, but they seem unable to overcome some core game debilitating issues.

I know some people have had zero issues with the game, but that is clearly not my case or that of many others. In my case the biggest issue is having updates that break addons (CRJ/a320). Update should not be mandatory, should be beta tested properly and a rollback to a previous version should be allowed. Without this I won't be spending another dime on the marketplace.

Besides that I agree that progress has been made and I do enjoy flying with it heavily modded. I like to fly airline style ops and I would have less to complain if flying steam gauges and vfr, like you seem to suggest. A couple of small things I just don't understand why Ms doesn't fix like a tcas system on multiplayer, weather to match atis, atc instructions etc. The multiplayer groups are also extremely buggy, my friends will randomly disappear and we all just switched to live/open. Overall I do think its improving slowly, but the mandatory updates are a bust for me and many others.

 

I'm no only flown I have given instruction in "glass cockpit". I can share  many stories pilots who lost in "glass", follow wrong magenta line or simply couldn't set simple approach without loosing control of the aircraft under pressure. Real life aside there is already free G1000 in store that offers tons of thing simmer think they would use in real life  LOL 

Let me put this way  X-plane doesn't feature fully functional Dynon. And it does it make it lesser sim? Garmin not the only "glass" you can find it a cockpit Dynon, Aspen or Avidyne ! Below are few examples

Edited August 27, 20214 yr by sd_flyer