Not-a-pilot, not-a-dev user's last wishes for MSFS

[cobalt]

18 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Very few if any MSFS users troll on the XP forum, why is it always the other way around?

Because MSFS users are too busy exploring the world in a fantastic sim, to waste time trolling other forums. Personally I have no interest in who flies in XP, if that's what they choose to do.

[lwt1971]

7 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I suppose some people expect it to "fly on rails" still. What MS-Asobo did is really difficult, they broke from the previous more traditional flight models to try to make things feel more dynamic. It doesn't have perfect execution here, but it is what it is, some planes better than others. How much of the fault is on the individual plane dev vs. Asobo's difficult methods of implementing plane-specific physics (or maybe it's just a difficult thing to do) could be debated for years and no answer would ever satisfy everyone.

Cessna 414 is good, still also like some Carenados even though they fly a bit more on rails (sometimes it's a nice change).

Bang on... despite all the clownish talking points about MSFS by the usual characters, a lot of us continue to enjoy high fidelity flight dynamics and systems/avionics in the payware Fenix A320, PMDG 737, FSW C414, Milviz C310, and the default iniBuilds A310, Citation Longitude, etc. And now we're about to get a much much better default 787 and 747. And the A2A Comanche that will beef up the GA experience in MSFS soon. Let's not also forget payware level high fidelity in the default G1000Nxi/G3000/G5000 avionics. I've used nearly all the sims out there for years, and for me MSFS is at the very least at par and actually a better *flying* experience on the whole than any of of them, precisely due to the dreaded "on rails" feeling not being there, and the overall immersion factor being so good.

Add to this MSFS's world visuals, weather, lighting, etc .. paired with properly implemented aircraft (and of course proper and calibrated controls), IMO you have a very compelling sim experience matched by no other, and a reason for why MSFS is as successful as it is.
 

Edited May 16, 2023 by lwt1971

[Bobsk8]

15 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Bang on... despite all the clownish talking points about MSFS by the usual characters, a lot of us continue to enjoy high fidelity flight dynamics and systems/avionics in the payware Fenix A320, PMDG 737, FSW C414, Milviz C310, and the default iniBuilds A310, Citation Longitude, etc. And now we're about to get a much much better default 787 and 747. And the A2A Comanche that will beef up the GA experience in MSFS soon. Let's not also forget payware level high fidelity in the default G1000Nxi/G3000/G5000 avionics. I've used nearly all the sims out there for years, and for me MSFS is at the very least at par and actually a better *flying* experience on the whole than any of of them, precisely due to the dreaded "on rails" feeling not being there, and the overall immersion factor being so good.

Add to this MSFS's world visuals, weather, lighting, etc .. paired with properly implemented aircraft (and of course proper and calibrated controls), IMO you have a very compelling sim experience unmatched by no other, and a reason for why MSFS is as successful as it is.
 

Plus you don't have to spend a ton of money on add ons to get it to look great, it does right out of the box. 

[Pathfinder633]

Quote

IMO you have a very compelling sim experience unmatched by no other, and a reason for why MSFS is as successful as it is.

Nah, its more to do with the graphics than anything else. combine that with Xbox port and all the young gamers that brought in and you have a very successful game (though one that still pales into insignificance in relation to the premiere gaming  titles.

All this high fidelity, like no other nonsense is for those that take the game and themselves far too seriously

Sense of humour .............try get one😁

[Bobsk8]

2 minutes ago, Pathfinder633 said:

Nah, its more to do with the graphics than anything else. combine that with Xbox port and all the young gamers that brought in and you have a very successful game (though one that still pales into insignificance in relation to the premiere gaming  titles.

All this high fidelity, like no other nonsense is for those that take the game and themselves far too seriously

Sense of humour .............try get one😁

Not another one......🤪

[cobalt]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder633 said:

Nah, its more to do with the graphics than anything else. combine that with Xbox port and all the young gamers that brought in and you have a very successful game (though one that still pales into insignificance in relation to the premiere gaming  titles.

All this high fidelity, like no other nonsense is for those that take the game and themselves far too seriously

Sense of humour .............try get one😁

It seems the trolls are still with us, but only occasionally now. The good news is, there are far fewer than there used to be. MSFS users are focused on the ongoing development of this sim, seeing it get better and better -- much more exciting than dealing with trolls, which has long since become mostly a bore.

[jarmstro]

What I would like, above everything else, and I mean everything, are realistic trimmed field hedgerows. What I see at the moment is unrealistic and in fact laughable.

[Pathfinder633]

2 hours ago, cobalt said:

It seems the trolls are still with us, but only occasionally now. The good news is, there are far fewer than there used to be. MSFS users are focused on the ongoing development of this sim, seeing it get better and better -- much more exciting than dealing with trolls, which has long since become mostly a bore.

You make like you are speaking for all MSFS users, let me tell you...you aint

and I bet far more are focussed on playing the game than stressing over the latest update or whether the flight model is believable to some internet random who never got their word not allowed together to fly a real aircraft but thinks he can fly  because-MSFS

[bofhlusr]

On 5/15/2023 at 12:37 PM, Floaty Potato said:

The only significant wish I have is for continued improvement to map imaging, especially in areas like Africa, SE Asia, and South America. It's a minor quibble (and I know geopolitics plays a large role in the availability of some of this) and I still love flying these areas, but if I were to add something to my wishlist, this would be it. 

It'd be nice but it's likely not 'low hanging fruit' or something that is already being worked on. I doubt if it can be done on two weeks short notice. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by bofhlusr

[Glenn Fitzpatrick]

On 5/16/2023 at 3:56 AM, Bobsk8 said:

Very few if any MSFS users troll on the XP forum, why is it always the other way around?

If your choice of sim is good enough you are too busy flying to troll forums.

If you are bored and have time to troll the forums you need to reassess your choice of sim product.

[Sonosusto]

13 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Bang on... despite all the clownish talking points about MSFS by the usual characters, a lot of us continue to enjoy high fidelity flight dynamics and systems/avionics in the payware Fenix A320, PMDG 737, FSW C414, Milviz C310, and the default iniBuilds A310, Citation Longitude, etc. And now we're about to get a much much better default 787 and 747. And the A2A Comanche that will beef up the GA experience in MSFS soon. Let's not also forget payware level high fidelity in the default G1000Nxi/G3000/G5000 avionics. I've used nearly all the sims out there for years, and for me MSFS is at the very least at par and actually a better *flying* experience on the whole than any of of them, precisely due to the dreaded "on rails" feeling not being there, and the overall immersion factor being so good.

Add to this MSFS's world visuals, weather, lighting, etc .. paired with properly implemented aircraft (and of course proper and calibrated controls), IMO you have a very compelling sim experience matched by no other, and a reason for why MSFS is as successful as it is.
 

All of this!

13 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Plus you don't have to spend a ton of money on add ons to get it to look great, it does right out of the box. 

And all of this.

 

Though their airports are not always to my liking. No biggie.

[Alpine Scenery]

13 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Plus you don't have to spend a ton of money on add ons to get it to look great, it does right out of the box. 

I wish you had told me that about 200 airports and 50 planes ago.

 

[Sonosusto]

14 hours ago, Pathfinder633 said:

Nah, its more to do with the graphics than anything else. combine that with Xbox port and all the young gamers that brought in and you have a very successful game (though one that still pales into insignificance in relation to the premiere gaming  titles.

All this high fidelity, like no other nonsense is for those that take the game and themselves far too seriously

Sense of humour .............try get one😁

Judging by your posts its difficult to see where you're joking here.....

Anywho.... And what about the PMDG 737 series, Fenix, Milviz 310 etc make them not higher fidelity? What about the Black Square series of planes? INI builds 310? FlySimWare 414? Flight FX H-Jet or Vision Jet?

What about the Working Title group improving upon the G1/3/5000 series and the Longitude etc? Or some of the several developers jumping ship over to MSFS?

The dynamics are fairly good and the planes don't feel like their on rails. The scenery is amazing and better than any other simulator not only by default but with mods as well. Even my hours and hours building ortho tiles and improving the autogen of other simulators doesn't hold a candle to MSFS. Seriously, where else is this better right now?

If you're going to troll here then defend your position rather than bombard the forum with useless comments. It is not amusing in the slightest. If you bring up Majestic Dash for some reason then keep in mind it's been in development forever and they have several price points....50 dollars on up to 300+ dollars.

Answer the questions.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Sonosusto