I have read many posts over these past few months, were a few are complaining that you really can't fly realistic IFR in MSFS 2020.... What a load of BS.  I just flew two ILS approaches in Sweden, One to ESNO and the second to ESSA, in the DC6. Both times, for 98% of the flight I did not see the ground, and below about 6,000 feet I was in a solid overcast, breaking out both times at around 250 ft AGL. Been flying sim IFR for decades, and these two flights today were the best looking and most realistic flights I have done. No autoland, no autothrottle, you really had to fly the approach.  Can't wait to fly again.  😉

 

 

29 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

 No autoland, no autothrottle, you really had to fly the approach.  Can't wait to fly again.  😉

 

I think there are many that don't hand fly to much on IFR flights. Many (the youtuber and streamers, which i guess=will be copied by many) put their wheels up and engage the Autopilot. That is also why there are many who are looking for VNAV functionality. Sort of autopilot programming simulator. 

I'm also sad that there are many RNAV only SID/STAR being introduced and airports. Prevents the oldschool navigating. 😟 

As you're saying, it is upmost satifying to have full concentration and probably go to the max of your abilities and nail such a flight! 😁

54 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have read many posts over these past few months, were a few are complaining that you really can't fly realistic IFR in MSFS 2020....

Progress that has evolved over your reference time period of several months in all honesty has changed that landscape.  Improvements in Navdata alone has been a significant step.  That is especially true for GA flying. 

Asobo upon initial MSFS release did much better at providing representative navdata at major airports (commercial traffic types) than at regional and local airports.  I had a number of GA airports that I routinely fly to that lacked all but perhaps one IAP, and even for that approach lacked all but one IAF.  And the lone IAF was typically during the first several months a somewhat distant entry point for a published arrival into a nearby major commercial airport.  It was just not workable if flying IMC conditions, GA, into a local or regional.  The lack of published holds if arriving from an opposite direction and being forced then to fly as much as 30+ NM to pick up an IAF was far from realistic.

And then despite third party work, the GPS avionics had incredible shortcomings and flaws. For me personally, the arrival with SU5 of the now-official WT G1000 NXi has been a great game changer.  I am flying strictly NXi equipped aircraft until the same development has been applied to the G3000.

I can now enjoy flying IFR and IFR approaches.  But 30 days ago it just was not the same.  I do not recall the exact date of Navgraph current cycle implementation, but the number of months since is less than the months before.

The complaints at the time were more than legitimate! 

Edited September 11, 20214 yr by fppilot

57 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Been flying sim IFR for decades, and these two flights today were the best looking and most realistic flights I have done. No autoland, no autothrottle, you really had to fly the approach.  Can't wait to fly again.

I agree with you. Before MSFS, I've been flying mostly in P3D with the PMDG NGX and NGXu, using mainly the FMS to manage the route. At the time, learning to manage the FMS was a new step for me and I really enjoyed doing it.

But with MSFS, even though I once in a while program the full route in the GPS (including SID and STAR), I lately decided to fly the old school way (VOR, NDB, ILS, no GPS) with the PMDG DC-6, as I learned in my first real life flying back in early 1980s. And what a fun ride it is in MSFS. 

As @bigyfooti mentioned, some airports having only RNAV SIDs and STARs limits my choice of destinations, but there are plenty of possibilities at other airports.

The new feature in SimBrief that lets you create "VOR Only" routes is a nice tool in this regard.

I agree with Frank.  When MSFS debuted very few aircraft had the navigational power to handle a basic rnav (GPS) approach.  Then came along the WT CJ4 mod, and so on and so forth.  The A32X in experimental mode, the WT g1000 NXi, etc etc.  We're doing a LOT better now.

8 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

I agree with Frank.  When MSFS debuted very few aircraft had the navigational power to handle a basic rnav (GPS) approach.  Then came along the WT CJ4 mod, and so on and so forth.  The A32X in experimental mode, the WT g1000 NXi, etc etc.  We're doing a LOT better now.

All I use is the default 430. and two VOR/Loc receivers in the DC6. I use  Avliasoft EFB for all my charts and approaches and moving map. That's it. I have over 500 flights, most everyone to different airports in 6 countries, and all my approaches except a very few, are ILS and Rnav approaches. I started with GA aircraft, and now fly exclusively the DC6. 

Legacy ground based radio navigation  has never really been the issue. It was the abysmal implementation of RNAV that was preventing people from flying (yes even hand flying) a modern representation of the IFR system used today. Hey, I like /U as much as the other old geezers around here, but that just isn’t the way the world works anymore. Thankfully Working Title is starting to set things right.

6 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have read many posts over these past few months, were a few are complaining that you really can't fly realistic IFR in MSFS 2020.... What a load of BS.  I just flew two ILS approaches in Sweden, One to ESNO and the second to ESSA, in the DC6. Both times, for 98% of the flight I did not see the ground, and below about 6,000 feet I was in a solid overcast, breaking out both times at around 250 ft AGL. Been flying sim IFR for decades, and these two flights today were the best looking and most realistic flights I have done. No autoland, no autothrottle, you really had to fly the approach.  Can't wait to fly again.  😉

 

 

You obviously didn’t talk to ATC. 😉

Did you get an approach and runway assigned on arrival into the airspace? What happened when you added that to your Nav system? Have you tried this in a modern airliner with a glass cockpit?

Edited September 12, 20214 yr by Virtual-Chris

18 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

You obviously didn’t talk to ATC. 😉

Did you get an approach and runway assigned on arrival into the airspace? What happened when you added that to your Nav system?

I select the approach I want from Avliasoft EFB. They are all listed there for each airport, ILS, RNAV and visual. Once I select the approach I just enter it , and it goes into the flightplan and into the GPS at the same time. One click and it's done including all the waypoints. The EFB gives me the vertical profile and if it is an Rnav approach, it shows my aircraft on the vertical profile moving map. Works for every approach. 

 

 

Edited September 12, 20214 yr by Bobsk8

9 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

You obviously didn’t talk to ATC. 😉

Did you get an approach and runway assigned on arrival into the airspace? What happened when you added that to your Nav system?

I use PF3 for my ATC, and have for the last 5 years or more. I can select my own approach, by telling PF3 that I will determine the type of approach I want, if it is a published approach, or I can let PF3 vector to me to the airport. 

30 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I use PF3 for my ATC, and have for the last 5 years or more. I can select my own approach, by telling PF3 that I will determine the type of approach I want, if it is a published approach, or I can let PF3 vector to me to the airport. 

Well then you’re not flying IFR just using MSFS then… you should have made that clear. And those of us concerned about trying to fly IFR in MSFS are trying to do so with the built-in ATC and Nav systems. It’s a bloody mess. Posts like yours that are dismissive of these problems are not helpful. 

Edited September 12, 20214 yr by Virtual-Chris

34 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I use PF3 for my ATC, and have for the last 5 years or more. I can select my own approach, by telling PF3 that I will determine the type of approach I want, if it is a published approach, or I can let PF3 vector to me to the airport. 

🍎 and 🍊

9 hours ago, NBouc said:

I agree with you. Before MSFS, I've been flying mostly in P3D with the PMDG NGX and NGXu, using mainly the FMS to manage the route. At the time, learning to manage the FMS was a new step for me and I really enjoyed doing it.

But with MSFS, even though I once in a while program the full route in the GPS (including SID and STAR), I lately decided to fly the old school way (VOR, NDB, ILS, no GPS) with the PMDG DC-6, as I learned in my first real life flying back in early 1980s. And what a fun ride it is in MSFS. 

As @bigyfooti mentioned, some airports having only RNAV SIDs and STARs limits my choice of destinations, but there are plenty of possibilities at other airports.

SIDs and STARs aren't mandatory at all and RNAV procedures are flown basically the same as VOR procedures with aircraft equipped with an HSI or VOR receiver. Obviously you need a GPS unit(or an old school rnav device) but you will shoot the needle the same as you do with VOR, you just wont have to dial a frequency and monitor the dme(btw, a GPS unit is a legal substitute for a dme according to the FAA. Obviously it refers to approved gps unit like the GNS and not your mobile phone) 

As usual, this thread mixes up several issues 

- the default ATC is at best as bad as its predecessor. Regrettable but nothing new. 

- Equating IFR and flying a programmable modern airliner.  The latter is certainly desirable for some simmers but is not the touchstone of IFR or flight simulation. 

- the RNAV buggy autopilot. As said by others, you can fly traditional nav beacons with the autopilot and RNAV by hand including the SID and STAR.  I don’t  need any mod to do that.