15 minutes ago, Mike T said:

Oh for crying out loud. ITS A GAME. A game. It's not a level D simulator, it's not FAA certified, it's just a game - like World of Warcraft, like Star Wars The Old Republic, like Pac Man - A game.

I would add that yes, it is certainly a game - but not quite like those others you mentioned, in that it's actually intended to resemble real life activities.  I've never actually run around a medieval world as a mythical creature, or fired lasers from a spaceship, or had to eat a bunch of dots while being chased by ghosts.  I have however flown a lot of multi engine airplanes and currently fly airliners, so if you're going to tell me that a game is supposed to resemble that activity, I suppose it's fair to evaluate whether it can handle what is one of the very basic maneuvers in any airliner.

It would, conversely, be difficult to evaluate Pac Man's success at representing the ghost - pursued - dot - eating.  😉

12 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Er?

I guess you're one who prizes the arcane visual details over accuracy.  I mean, that's cool.  I never said it wasn't.  I just pointed out that it's only one perspective, and many simmers fall into the opposite camp.  I'm not sure why that seemingly offended you.

Yes. I'm not a pretend airline pilot, so I don't care about the irrelevant minutia. And since Microsoft wasted millions of dollars rendering the entire PLANET, I figure I would enjoy some of those "arcane" visuals. I'm a high fidelity aircraft snob like the next guy, but am I not blind to the other 99.999% of rendered visuals because the landing gear compression ratio is off by 17mm? No. I'm not.

The irony of complaining about unrealistic V1 cuts and engine performance, while unrealistically sitting at a desk, in a office chair, on a home computer playing a game is pretty monumental.

Just now, Mike T said:

Yes. I'm not a pretend airline pilot, so I don't care about the irrelevant minutia. And since Microsoft wasted millions of dollars rendering the entire PLANET, I figure I would enjoy some of those "arcane" visuals. I'm a high fidelity aircraft snob like the next guy, but am I not blind to the other 99.999% of rendered visuals because the landing gear compression ratio is off by 17mm? No. I'm not.

The irony of complaining about unrealistic V1 cuts and engine performance, while unrealistically sitting at a desk, in a office chair, on a home computer playing a game is pretty monumental.

You're dramatically underestimating the importance of single engine handling to a representation of a multi engine aircraft.  It's certainly not minutia; it's a fundamental.

But again, I never said you shouldn't sim any way you want, with any level of attention to detail that you want, so I'm not sure what offends you here.  Knock yourself out enjoying the pretty world!  👍

On 4/9/2023 at 2:52 PM, Bobsk8 said:

Any VA I have ever flown with, wouldn't let you do that. 

VAs are a thing of the early 2000s 

sim rate 8x and there we go. Nothing wrong with skipping x hours boring crz

2 hours ago, DaWu said:

VAs are a thing of the early 2000s 

sim rate 8x and there we go. Nothing wrong with skipping x hours boring crz

VAs (certain ones) are still very much alive and well. 

There is a built in feature that lets you jump ahead to a waypoint but last I checked you emerge at the way point with AP etc all turned off.

Give me a PMDG 777 or I would never attempt a long haul flight in MSFS realistic. 16 to 17 hours. I want to do a flight from KLAX to OMDB without the shortcuts and shenannagains..

 

Edited April 11, 20233 yr by jbdbow1970

12 hours ago, DaWu said:

VAs are a thing of the early 2000s 

sim rate 8x and there we go. Nothing wrong with skipping x hours boring crz

A ridiculous statement...best stick to playing mine craft or whatever.

Definitely not a sim person.

Anyone who claims that Flight simulation is "Just a game" but yet spends money on study level aircraft...well you have a bit of explaining to do in my opinion.

UPSVAC.com

Edited April 11, 20233 yr by PBCool1

6 hours ago, PBCool1 said:

A ridiculous statement...best stick to playing mine craft or whatever.

Definitely not a sim person.

Anyone who claims that Flight simulation is "Just a game" but yet spends money on study level aircraft...well you have a bit of explaining to do in my opinion.

UPSVAC.com

lol

17 hours ago, DaWu said:

VAs are a thing of the early 2000s 

sim rate 8x and there we go. Nothing wrong with skipping x hours boring crz

Guessing you have some sort of statistics to back up your claim? 

when you simrate the weather doesn't follow .. so you end up with incoherent weather with the time of the day. (it could be night with daytime weather if it's still daytime in real life)

19 hours ago, Mike T said:

Oh for crying out loud. ITS A GAME. A game. It's not a level D simulator, it's not FAA certified, it's just a game - like World of Warcraft, like Star Wars The Old Republic, like Pac Man - A game. And in that game, Asobo, MS, and yes FENIX have given us things that we could only dream about 3 years ago, but never mind that - their wonky airplane can't do a V1 cut right now - what a pile of garbage huh?

I tell you. If you people won a million dollars in cash you'd complain that the picture of Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill is inaccurate because everyone knows he had a mole above his right eye and it is not depicted properly on the money.

Wow. V1 cut (SMDH). I think the BIGGEST mistake was naming it "Flight Simulator". If it was named "Flight Game" then people would just have fun. You know? Fun?

Mike T.

The man (StearmanDriver) has a point.

We have, by my estimation, 3 very good airliners, only one of them from a "legacy" P3D or XP dev - the Fenix, the Longitude, and the PMDG 737. Of that crop, I'd rate PMDG top of the list simply because of continued development, a clear roadmap - they went in with a mission and executed it, without excess feature creep.

The Fenix is very good, but even Aamir, who finds an opportunity to post on everything regarding his product on Avsim nearly to the point of "he doth protest too much," would concede that they don't have the single engine flight modeling quite right, and the engine modeling is undergoing a large overhaul.

I'm way less concerned with those of us dissatisfied with the state of the sim ecosystem (myself included) than I am with the legion of users that are willing to pay $30 for shovelware but complain about $50 for a bonafide addon. I'm more concerned with the number of devs participating in said shovelware economy.

The sim is very pretty, and we have a handful of very good developers at the moment, but we have far more churning out trash. I think some of us see that as the greater threat to the long-term viability of the community than anything else - I know that's how I feel.

I do have to slow myself down sometimes and be reminded that on the ESP platform it took until P3D for addons to start getting great, so maybe we're still just in early days, and the golden age comes later this year. I'm not sure though.

Edited April 11, 20233 yr by mspencer

Jealous. I don't have much time for long-hauls as my toddler loves to intervene mid-flight sometimes.

3 hours ago, cepact said:

when you simrate the weather doesn't follow .. so you end up with incoherent weather with the time of the day. (it could be night with daytime weather if it's still daytime in real life)

Much is made of this... Too much I think.  In the first place, there really isn't such a thing as "daytime" or "nighttime" weather.  Are there conditions that are more LIKELY to occur at a time of day?  Sure?  But many types of dynamics other than daytime heating can cause convective development for instance; there's outflow boundaries etc.  I mean, nighttime thunderstorms aren't unusual.  Neither is daytime fog, as there are more mechanisms than radiative cooling that cause fog. 

Those are just a couple examples of dozens.  There's not really anything "wrong", from a realism standpoint, with having any type of weather at any time of day in the sim.  And I mean, it's certainly easy enough to fix... If you arrive in lighting conditions you don't like for whatever reason, there's a very simple slider for that ;).

On 4/10/2023 at 12:45 AM, Bobsk8 said:

My guess is that most of the long haulers, start a flight on autopilot, then go shopping, or watch a couple of movies, or go to bed, set the sim to pause at top of descent, return to the PC 8 hours later and land. I just don't get it??

Doesn't the sim have a built-in skip to TOD feature? Pretty sure you can skip to any stage of the flight.

I personally wouldn't leave my PC cranking all night. Waste of energy.