8 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I'm not going to debate the obvious with you.  It is absolutely not elitism.  It was even pointed out how much vatsim has improved their training lately.  They even have pilot levels that can be earned with corresponding training courses.  I'm not going to say every single post in that thread had no elitism.   You are fundamentally correct that xbox will have novice sim pilots and expert sim pilots.  Most don't debate that.  But totally unsure why you knock the lack of training.  It's improved drastically.  The youtube videos and guides out there also make it so anybody can learn it.  There is nothign elite about being on vatsim.  They have had over 700,000 people sign up for accounts with over 100,000 active in the last 6 months.  For the record I think increasing testing requirements would improve the problems that the network has experienced in the last year.  Are you an active member?  If not it's probably tough for you to comment on.  

 

It has improved drastically recently. Most of that thread was very old. 

I certainly did not argue that there's something "elite" about being on vatsim, but it's doubtless that some believe there is, and that those seen as "casuals" due to flying on Xbox should be excluded, as several posts in that thread aptly showcased. By the way, where has it gone? I can't find it anymore. 

34 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

Anyway....the default planes on this sim are mediocre

I really don't think that's a fair assessment seen in the perspective of default aircraft. If you compare them to A2A, yes, they're word not allowed. If you compare them to other default panes in any sim, they're exceptionally good, and consistently improving (which is also not that common).

Edited March 18, 20224 yr by Abriael

2 minutes ago, Abriael said:

 

 

2 minutes ago, Abriael said:

I really don't think that's a fair assessment seen in the perspective of default aircraft. If you compare them to A2A, yes, they're word not allowed. If you compare them to other default panes in any sim, they're exceptionally good, and consistently improving.

A2A has not been able to come up with any aircraft in three years, in any sim. 

3 minutes ago, Abriael said:

I really don't think that's a fair assessment seen in the perspective of default aircraft. If you compare them to A2A, yes, they're word not allowed. If you compare them to other default panes in any sim, they're exceptionally good, and consistently improving (which is also not that common).

Am I becoming an Elitist? Haha. I probably am being too harsh on them in some respects. But after going back and forth in between default planes and the modified ones....I will stand by my statement at least a little. The mods are a huge improvement in realism. Then again, I am not a real pilot but will listen to those that fly both the real planes, the default ones and the modified ones. In other words: I don't really know better. 😉 Some day!

As I said before, I wasn't a fan of the default XP planes either. I use this sim way more than XP nowadays.

36 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

Am I becoming an Elitist?

 

Nah, I don't think considering the default planes negatively is elitist. But I think that point of view loses track of what default aircraft are for. They're there to provide a baseline for those who don't intend to go deeper in the hobby. Asobo and Microsoft are actually putting unexpectedly sizable resources in their continued development, which surprised me (the quantity of resources Microsoft puts in pretty much everything related to this simulator is surprising), but we need to keep a realistic optic on the fact that they need to maintain tens of different aircraft, so the fact that they're as they are is already pretty luxurious for defaults.

I think it is worth mentioning that MSFS comes with a sizeable number of default airplanes.. some better than others, no doubt.

Personally, I consider the G36 Bonanza (especially enhanced with the free Rob Young flight model) as good as any addon airplane.

Not clear to me what "study level" really means when looking at GA airplanes..  For complex airliners, I do get the idea that sizeable manuals and training are required to operate the aircraft.. and there, PMDG is more likely to provide that level of depth.. but even business jets like the CJ4, are actually very good in MSFS, when enhanced with the (free) WT updates.

I believe that A2A helped out on some of the default planes anyway I'm not sure if they are pure Asobo.

ns

19 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

I believe that A2A helped out on some of the default planes anyway I'm not sure if they are pure Asobo.

ns

I haven't heard about that, but it's very possible. I know they helped with one or more aircraft included in the Reno Air Races expansion.

On 3/17/2022 at 4:14 PM, Krakin said:

Optics. There's still a bunch hardcore guys who won't touch MSFS because it is perceived as just a game. Imagine what will happen when MS has the sim with the reputation of having the best default planes on the market.

Imagine what will happen...? That little bunch of hardcore guys may touch MSFS. Wow. Big deal. The amount of people playing MSFS will increase with around 0.00000002 percent. I am not really sure what you think will happen...?

13 minutes ago, tup61 said:

Imagine what will happen...? That little bunch of hardcore guys may touch MSFS. Wow. Big deal. The amount of people playing MSFS will increase with around 0.00000002 percent. I am not really sure what you think will happen...?

You have 2 extra zeros in there.

ns

6 hours ago, Sonosusto said:

That is true. I do still enjoy flying them. I still take the Baron or Bonanza out but after using the Bonanza mod its kind of hard to go back.

The Bonanza is moddable because its files are not encrypted. The Baron is extremely difficult to modify as it is encrypted. That is why a lot of devs are trying to persuade Asobo to stop the encryption of config files. It is preventing people from improving really bad flaws in the default aircraft. I don't think it is unreasonable, elitist or excessive to request or comment on these things. Flight control issues with this sim are not anything connected with control setups. They merely cover up or mask the flaws.

It's quite simple. The flight models of the lighter aircraft need to be tweaked (and it is relatively easy) so they have proper response to input. I, and a few other devs, have been doing this for many years and we know how to do it. Asobo does not know how to do it.

7 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

 

A2A has not been able to come up with any aircraft in three years, in any sim. 

And so as Majestic, it does not  mean thery're out of business. It will take some time "years" for they to come to the new platform if they chose to.

Edited March 19, 20224 yr by jbdbow1970

1 hour ago, jbdbow1970 said:

And so as Majestic, it does not  mean thery're out of business. It will take some time "years" for they to come to the new platform if they chose to.

Working for a software developer I can tell you now the problem here is pretty obvious and not just limited to flight simulation.

Basically, as your best most talented and experienced developers get older they get less inclined to jump into learning a complete new system. They will learn what they need to and try and use as much of their old skills as they can get away with. it is simply not viable for them to spend 3 years relearning everything when they are going to retire in five anyway.  Meanwhile you have a crop of fresh young talent keen to dive straight into the new systems but they lack the industry experience and depth of knowledge to follow through with a timely delivery of an acceptable product.

In my workplace we have a batch of developers with decades of experience in now antiquated systems like Delphi who are about to retire and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into working on new products and also a lot of bushy tailed young guys who talk the talk and promise the sky but currently cannot deliver a functional product on time.  These young guys after a few years will come into their own but they are not there yet.

Edited March 19, 20224 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

MSFS default planes are beautiful but practical.  Me I  would make them buttery smooth which would appeal to most.

ns

9 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

MSFS default planes are beautiful but practical.  Me I  would make them buttery smooth which would appeal to most.

ns

Not at 60 bucks. Thats why we have 100$ simulated aircraft out there. This is not on MSFS that 3pd jobs.

On 3/17/2022 at 10:44 AM, Krakin said:

I think they should work towards gradually getting all of the default planes to "study level".

Keep in mind that most people who use MSFS are casual “pilots” and the learning curve can be steep for non-pilots even with the current sim aircraft.

The folks playing MSFS on Xbox probably don’t care much about “study level” aircraft. I’m a real world pilot and even I don’t care about it frankly.