Too Much?

[andyjohnston.net 617]

Wondering if there are others like me (although I suppose they wouldn't be reading this forum.)

I've been running various versions of Flight Simulator for 25+ years, starting with FS-5.1 up to the present.  I've never had any trouble getting the aircraft to do what I wanted until now.  It seems the most recent updates, trying to make them as real as the devs can, have pushed those aircraft beyond me.

Would it be at all useful to have perhaps some 'dumbed-down' aircraft so that people like me can use them?  I can do the piston driver guys, but the jets have gotten to be too much.  Even the formerly tame 747 seems to have become to complex.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[F737MAX 5,735]

30 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

It seems the most recent updates, trying to make them as real as the devs can, have pushed those aircraft beyond me.

What in particular are you finding problematic? It will be hard to make 'easier' aircraft recommendations without knowing what is causing you grief.

 

33 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

Would it be at all useful to have perhaps some 'dumbed-down' aircraft so that people like me can use them?

They exist, though they aren't always held in much esteem considering most flight simmers here are after the most realistic recreations of their favourite aircraft.

Let's see what MSFS Avsimmers can suggest with a little bit more specific info.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

38 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

Even the formerly tame 747 seems to have become to complex.

It would be handy if they released manuals, whilst increasing the complexity of these aircraft. Unless they did and I missed it? 

[Mace 1,948]

44 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

Wondering if there are others like me (although I suppose they wouldn't be reading this forum.)

I've been running various versions of Flight Simulator for 25+ years, starting with FS-5.1 up to the present.  I've never had any trouble getting the aircraft to do what I wanted until now.  It seems the most recent updates, trying to make them as real as the devs can, have pushed those aircraft beyond me.

Would it be at all useful to have perhaps some 'dumbed-down' aircraft so that people like me can use them?  I can do the piston driver guys, but the jets have gotten to be too much.  Even the formerly tame 747 seems to have become to complex.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I use checklists...this helps me tremendously.  There is no way I could be competent on so many aircraft at once...maybe some people can do that, but I cannot.

And if I don't fly something in a while, good luck!  I have to almost re-learn it.  It only takes a month or two for me to get rusty.

[Funky D 275]

8 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

It would be handy if they released manuals, whilst increasing the complexity of these aircraft. Unless they did and I missed it? 

Aircraft Manuals - Microsoft Flight Simulator

WT mentioned they will be releasing some tutorial videos within the next week or so as well.

[Sethos 4,512]

I don't think a simulator properly simulating what it intends to simulate can ever be considered too much -- At least not from the perspective that it then needs to be dialed back again. Though I can understand the need and desire to just jump in and get going, which there are a lot of available planes, albeit more in the smaller weight class, as the bigger planes just tend to be checklist and button heavy.

So you just need to find some addon planes or even just the simplified default planes that have easier startup procedures and enjoy those.

[Farlis 2,312]

Seb explained their philosophy quite well: They are not in the market to dumb reality down. They will give you assists if you need them (like electronic checklists for example), like if you were flying with an instructor, but they are not going to simplify reality. 

 

And they announced that they are going to push this further with their aircraft in 2024, adding wear and tear, so that you really have to start doing things by the book.

Will this be too much for some? Probably. Then they'll just have to stick with the aircraft they think they can master and learn those and take it from there.

 

[Bert Pieke 7,586]

1 hour ago, andyjohnston.net said:

I can do the piston driver guys, but the jets have gotten to be too much.  Even the formerly tame 747 seems to have become to complex.

These are indeed complex aircraft, and ATP training is extensive..  So, if you want to fly one, you will have to invest the time to learn...  PMDG can get you started on the 737, complete with documentation.. That may be a better starting point than the 747 😎

[Danno 193]

1 hour ago, Mace said:

There is no way I could be competent on so many aircraft at once...maybe some people can do that, but I cannot.

And if I don't fly something in a while, good luck!  I have to almost re-learn it.  It only takes a month or two for me to get rusty.

This is why airline pilots stick to only one aircraft type. A pilot won’t fly a 737 today and then a Dash 7 tomorrow. If anyone (including us simpilots) want to get proficient, stick with that one model for a while.

To the OP.... Start with a simple model. Maybe the C172. Something not too complex. And stick with it (always using checklists) until you feel very comfortable. Then move on to something a bit more complex (maybe the TBM) and stick with that for a while. And watch some YouTube videos. They can be a big help.  

Edited June 26, 2023 by Danno

[Farlis 2,312]

But it's also not rocket science. Half a dozen hops with the help of step by step guides and you should have it down. At least normal operations. That is how I learned all the study level aircraft over the years. And Boeing logic is the same for every aircraft, so once you understand one of them, you understand them all.

[Sky_Pilot071 581]

The HJET is the simplest plane I know in MSFS.

sp

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

28 minutes ago, Danno said:

This is why airline pilots stick to only one aircraft type. A pilot won’t fly a 737 today and then a Dash 7 tomorrow

Ferry pilots do something similar to this right? At least the guy I have on twitter. He’s in a Dreamliner one day and a A320 the next! 

[Danno 193]

Yes. But when carrying passengers, there is a higher level of proficiency required. 

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

Just now, Danno said:

Yes. But when carrying passengers, there is a higher level of proficiency required. 

So if it’s empty they don’t mind if it has a higher probability of something going wrong due to pilot error? Interesting. 

[Danno 193]

It’s financial risk management. Losing an aircraft and a few employees is vastly different than killing 100 or 200 passengers. The lawsuits and PR fallout of using ‘part time’ pilots would be horrendous. Passenger pilots are also required to complete regular proficiency training even though they may fly every day.