Hi, so through various comments here in Avsim, I believe some people mentioned that MSFS will have the most advanced default G1000 for a flight simulator, once SU 10 is released  This is because the G1000 NXi will become the default G1000 in SU 10.

I think this is a huge accomplishment for MSFS.A lot of people criticizing MSFS claim MSFS is not as good for IFR flights compared to the competing simulators, but if the default G1000 for MSFS is the best default G1000 among all the simulators, I would think MSFS is suited very well for IFR flights with GA planes that use the default G1000.

I look forward to the G1000 NXi becoming the default G1000 in SU 10, and at the same time, I also want to thank the Working Title team for their hard work on the G1000 NXi. A big thanks to @MattNischan and the Working Title team for the great work the have done on the G1000 NXi 👍

People who say that are just judging the original release of the sim (which was a total joke as far as avionics go).

I'm definitely looking forward to exploring the G1000 NXi, post-SU 10. Right now, I'm wrapped up in a few steam-gauge aircraft, but I recently bought the SWS Kodiak 100 in their sale, and I'm ready to get going with it. Ditto the DA-62. Ain't flight simming fun at the moment ! 🙂

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

People who say that are just judging the original release of the sim (which was a total joke as far as avionics go).

Sadly, there are people in other forums, who still claim that MSFS is still not suitable for IFR flights. I think I encountered such a comment within the last few months.

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

People who say that are just judging the original release of the sim (which was a total joke as far as avionics go).

$60 video game fails to replicate $25,000 avionics system accurately says random man with a beard.... more news at 11 after these messages.....  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

29 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Sadly, there are people in other forums, who still claim that MSFS is still not suitable for IFR flights. I think I encountered such a comment within the last few months.

Me too. Last few weeks even I believe.

Don't worry, these people are beyond help. 

The biggest problem with simulating IFR flights in MSFS has always been the default ATC, and that has received little investment from Asobo. So those saying the game does not properly simulate IFR are not wrong. You need some kind of ATC add-on to properly sim IFR - ignoring ATC cannot be considered proper IFR simulation.

When the game launched, the G1000 was capable of following an IFR flight plan, including an ILS approach. The main annoyance back then was the use of User waypoints and backtracking when adding an approach. I really hope that’s fixed. 

It seems the significant updates are much better engine monitoring and overall completeness of the PFD/MFD options and ennunciations. 

Edited August 3, 20223 yr by Virtual-Chris

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

A lot of people criticizing MSFS claim MSFS is not as good for IFR flights compared to the competing simulators

'A lot of people'. You have to discount the religious type of flight simmer, who often don't base their claims on anything technical.  Rather they latch onto a flight sim like some latch on to their favourite sports team.  

competing simulators. This follows on from the point above - some simmers see other flight sims as competitors, rather than another flight sim that can enhance their hobby.  For this reason only their sim of choice is good enough for <insert criteria here>.

claim MSFS is not as good for IFR flights compared to the competing simulators.  Clearly the instrumentation in MSFS is good enough for IFR flight, but I think it is a reasonable claim - the lack of a visibility slider and lack of aerosol in the atmosphere could be a justified show stopper.  If a different simulator has accurate IFR instrumentation and visibility that can be set by the user, then that simulator maybe a better choice than MSFS for IFR flight.

 

7 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

The biggest problem with simulating IFR flights in MSFS has always been the default ATC, and that has received little investment from Asobo. So those saying the game does not properly simulate IFR are not wrong. You need some kind of ATC add-on to properly sim IFR - ignoring ATC cannot be considered proper IFR simulation.

Just use VATSIM. No ATC, no matter how well it is coded, no matter how sophisticated or advanced it is, can match VATSIM.  If you don't like VATSIM, there is also IVAO, or PilotEdge, as alternatives to VATSIM.

14 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

It seems the significant updates are much better engine monitoring and overall completeness of the PFD/MFD options and ennunciations. 

It goes way beyond that if you look into the release notes. It’s not fully featured, but it’s as robust as payware avionics suites. The commitment of the WT team and their communication with the user base has been outstanding from day 1. It’s no coincidence that the payware 3rd parties have focused on the GTN650/750 system and not the G1000.

Just one example of their dedication is that they updated the Marketplace NXi to be available for SU10 testers, to enable people to test the most recent versions with 3rd party planes whilst in the beta.

Edited August 3, 20223 yr by Cpt_Piett

10 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

It goes way beyond that if you look into the release notes. It’s not fully featured, but it’s as robust as payware avionics suites. The commitment of the WT team and their communication with the user base has been outstanding from day 1. It’s no coincidence that the payware 3rd parties have focused on the GTN650/750 system and not the G1000.

Just one example of their dedication is that they updated the Marketplace NXi to be available for SU10 testers, to enable people to test the most recent versions with 3rd party planes whilst in the beta.

Yes… So thankful for WT. without them, where would we be?!

1 hour ago, Virtual-Chris said:

The biggest problem with simulating IFR flights in MSFS has always been the default ATC, and that has received little investment from Asobo. So those saying the game does not properly simulate IFR are not wrong. You need some kind of ATC add-on to properly sim IFR - ignoring ATC cannot be considered proper IFR simulation.

When the game launched, the G1000 was capable of following an IFR flight plan, including an ILS approach. The main annoyance back then was the use of User waypoints and backtracking when adding an approach. I really hope that’s fixed. 

It seems the significant updates are much better engine monitoring and overall completeness of the PFD/MFD options and ennunciations. 

Ironically in all the full size sims I've been in there has never been ATC...  

30 minutes ago, psolk said:

Ironically in all the full size sims I've been in there has never been ATC...  

And you are absolutely legal to fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace in many parts of the world, especially sensible if you don't carry oxygen onboard and like in my country,  ATS routes have minimum of FL100 and the CTA starts at FL095, leaving that level as the only(?) suitable cruise level available to ensure controlled airspace on longer flights.

That's why IFR in uncontrolled airspace is convenient, if you know the risks ofc.

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Sadly, there are people in other forums, who still claim that MSFS is still not suitable for IFR flights. I think I encountered such a comment within the last few months.

Well, I'd suggest letting them think that way.  We cannot possibly inform everyone about these things.  At some point you just have to let them go about their ways and be done with it.

5 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Just use VATSIM. No ATC, no matter how well it is coded, no matter how sophisticated or advanced it is, can match VATSIM.  If you don't like VATSIM, there is also IVAO, or PilotEdge, as alternatives to VATSIM.

Vatsim is OK if you don't mind talking on Unicomm 85% of the time, because there are no controllers anywhere you want to fly.