3 hours ago, Manny said:

Yeah, The flight Plan I have to use something else and The default flt plan...For ATC. thats what I mean by Pain. 🙂

sorry?

On 10/18/2021 at 4:22 PM, simaddict said:

What I wonder, why do they even have Military Jets that don't, or can't do what they do?? Select a weapons loadout, land on a carrier, aerial refueling...and more.

All they do is fly, I guess.

Mike

Interestingly "all they do is fly" is what most military aircraft spend most of their time doing. Even the tactical jets fly unarmed for the most part. It is a challenge to master their systems and to fly them accurately in a variety of mission profiles. In MSFS we have the opportunity to fly them them anywhere in the world. Products like the T-45C, MB339 and the G-91 that we have currently in MSFS are superb renditions. The fact that they don't carry ordnance doesn't matter a jot to me because that is not what this Sim is about. Other games do that very well for those that want it.   On the older WW2 aircraft there is I think more of an issue around weapons etc but again my position is that Warbirds are an integral part of modern aviation and have a rightful place in our MSFS world. What does irritate me and I find very discordant is that superb products like the P-38L, Spitfire Mk 9 and the Corsair are all supplied with a WW2 pilot figures complete with MaeWest and leather helmets! To my mind they would hold much more appeal in MSFS if they wore modern flight suits and bone domes. Fingers crossed that the Reno aircraft give us that.

8 hours ago, Ferg said:

To my mind they would hold much more appeal in MSFS if they wore modern flight suits and bone domes. 

I don’t mind much the suit, more the fact that they don’t carry a modern nav equipment 😀

From somebody on the front lines of development of mid-range system detail / realism products, I'd suggest to the OP looking at the broad range of opinions replying to this thread and realising that there are a multitude of preferences that do not align with yours. Sure, there are some truly awful ( almost entirely non-functional ) releases out there but for the most part developers do work very hard to produce aircraft that their target market will like and appreciate.

I unashamedly target mid-level detail users and the new console market. I can only say that it works spectacularly well from a business point of view.

For those hankering after the high-fidelity airplanes, it's just a game of patience. They will arrive in MSFS, as I know several devs working on study-level airplanes. They can be done, but as pointed out in prior posts, it takes much longer to do / re-code all those systems than aircraft like my own. MSFS can already support them.

I do not have proper figures, but at a rough guesstimate I'd say that the study-level detail / quality / price market is perhaps 20% maximum of the overall market, and probably less than that now we have the console generation aboard. The vastly increased market size will result in greater investment by developers of all types in what is now an emerging market ( and a valuable one to boot ) so just sit tight and wait it out, I feel certain that everybody will get what they want in the end.

 

As a developer for MSFS airplanes (with experience in FS9, FSX, and P3D) specializing in systems code I'm very interested in this topic.  Because "quality level" is often a function of how accurate the systems functions are.  The visuals in MSFS (with a few exceptions) are almost always above the previous sims.  Depth of aircraft systems and flight model are where the serious variations are.

I divide systems quality into five basic categories:

1) Inaccurate.  Spotty systems implementation and what's there is often not accurate.

2) Low.  Only the basic systems necessary for flight, no custom code, but what's there is accurate to the extent the default systems are accurate.

3) Medium.  All necessary systems are done realistically mostly with default code.  All systems are accurately simulated.  Most MSFS default aircraft fit this category.

4) High.  Almost everything in the cockpit works realistically using whatever custom code is necessary.  Very few if any "frozen" switches.  Some mods get MSFS default to this level.

5) Fanatical.  This is high level but with every single control and indicator accurately functional even if they have no effect in the sim.  These are the "high-end" simulations.

The point of the OP is an appeal to place an airplane simulation in one of these categories and maintains that those below "high" should be shunned.  I can't agree, even though I wouldn't want to work on anything below high level personally (fortunately I work for a company that would never ask for anything less than high level.) Different folks have different tastes and I think it's great that there's something for everyone.  Even "inaccurate" because I think some like to fly their airplane from the outside view and if the flight controls work from there and it looks good that's all they care about.  And that's fine.

But there's a third option:  a developer can put in options to allow you to select the level you want.  In the not too distant future we'll have the Milviz 310R out and you'll see an example of that.  Out of the box it will be "medium" but you'll have several options on the tablet to select aspects of "high" up to the edges of fanatical.  Something for almost everyone.  Control-E for medium but realistic engine start for high.  No consequences for pilot mistakes versus realistic consequences.  And so on.

I hope more developers of quality aircraft will consider this. I know some already do.  I think it'll help sales to appeal to a broader audience with a single product.

Edited October 20, 20214 yr by Dutch727

Thanks for you informative comments. That sounds encouraging. I have owned several Milviz planes in FSX and in several versions of P3D: the C310R and Beech B55 were very good. One that I really enjoyed was the T-50 Bobcat. Lots of functionality, including the 1930's-4'0's era radio and navigation. I tried hard but never figured out how to make the radio work!

2 hours ago, AviatorMan said:

Thanks for you informative comments. That sounds encouraging. I have owned several Milviz planes in FSX and in several versions of P3D: the C310R and Beech B55 were very good. One that I really enjoyed was the T-50 Bobcat. Lots of functionality, including the 1930's-4'0's era radio and navigation. I tried hard but never figured out how to make the radio work!

Hey, I did that simulation of the Adcock radio ranges for the Bobcat! I didn't do the radio but we did modify it a bit for the radio range work.  Yeah, it's a faithful simulation of a 40's era low-medium frequency radio set with its huge crank wheel, it was a pain to tune and set up right.  Lots of people couldn't quite figure it out.

Edited October 20, 20214 yr by Dutch727