Awhile back a post on this forum led me to experiment with running MSFS2024 (and XP12) in “all default” mode - no add on scenery or planes (but I did allow liveries).

Here are my observations-

1) It was hard not to cheat - day 1 that @dfflyer fellow came out with an update to his Milwaukee scenery (added the Brewer’s stadium) - I HAD to try that (and its marvelous)

2) There is plenty of fun to be had running an all-default sim, and both sims include some nice add on aircraft (by my standards) - the new 707 fortunately was “default” for me

3) Having fewer choices reduced update maintenance, fewer chances for conflicts and issues, less decision fatigue, and I enjoyed the planes I had access to - I think there’s an element of the “jam experiment” here - fewer choices can counterintuitively lead to more satisfaction and enjoyment.

4) In my case, plane purchases are often good for a brief dopamine hit, then as the newness wears off and hedonic adaptation kicks in I fly them less (except the A2A and JustFlight fleet, so very high quality and performance are worth it). Smooth FPS and good textures are important to me in default planes or addons

5) Time for flying is scarce and easily interrupted, so fewer choices and spending time on updating or figuring out issues helps with this

5) Why doesn’t the freebie Piper Dakota we all got have a rotating beacon on the tail - or maybe mine fell off? I adore this plane otherwise. 😂

Anyone new to this hobby or those with limited means should hopefully find this all very encouraging, as well as anyone looking to try a new sim - if one has an OK-ish PC, for a limited investment, there is much fun to be had a simplicity is great*

*this is the same guy who has to box up over 250 die cast airliner models to sell to a dealer this week and has embraced the original “black box” NES Golf, so take my ramblings about the joy of simplicity as those of a 51 year old dude that may be confused but is, in general, sick of “too much”

The big thing about the default MSFS2024 sim is that the scenery is so amazing out of the box. You can definitely have a wonderful experience flying in it, along with the higher quality default aircraft like the C172s, Dakota and the wonderful default DV-20. If airliners are your thing then I think default becomes a bit more of a problem as - from brief tries of them all - the default airliners aren't great IMHO. But for GA, yes, models like the C172, Dakota and Cirrus are more functional and higher quality than top notch addon aircraft were, not too many years ago. And thanks to Working Title, the quality of 'default' avionics like the G1000, G3X and GNS units are higher than we could have imagined (especially when 2020 first released and we had those absolutely awful Asobo G1000, GNSs and G3X! Can you remember how bad and cartoonish they were? 😊 If you need reminding how bad the Asobo avionics were, just take a look at the default Garmin Aera. It's still that awful!)

But..... could I limit myself to the default aircraft and forego the choice to fly the A2A Comanche, Black Square 114, Bonanzas and Barons? The COWS DA-40 and DA-42? ... not in a million years!

Edited August 24Aug 24 by JYW

I wouldn't be able to cope with a default sim. There's only 3 or maybe 4 aircraft that are solid. And then the airports... Msfs airports are the biggest letdown. They use huge chunky buildings that don't remotely resemble hangars (at small airports). Or they use tiny buildings that only have man sized doors lol. Terminals don't look like terminals.

I absolutely need decent freeware or payware airports when I sim. Many default airports don't even have any buildings at all lol.

Since the dawn of my own simming time, the sim itself is the base, the foundation for addons.

1 hour ago, Republic DC9 said:

Awhile back a post on this forum led me to experiment with running MSFS2024 (and XP12) in “all default” mode - no add on scenery or planes (but I did allow liveries).

Here are my observations-

1) It was hard not to cheat - day 1 that @dfflyer fellow came out with an update to his Milwaukee scenery (added the Brewer’s stadium) - I HAD to try that (and its marvelous)

2) There is plenty of fun to be had running an all-default sim, and both sims include some nice add on aircraft (by my standards) - the new 707 fortunately was “default” for me

3) Having fewer choices reduced update maintenance, fewer chances for conflicts and issues, less decision fatigue, and I enjoyed the planes I had access to - I think there’s an element of the “jam experiment” here - fewer choices can counterintuitively lead to more satisfaction and enjoyment.

4) In my case, plane purchases are often good for a brief dopamine hit, then as the newness wears off and hedonic adaptation kicks in I fly them less (except the A2A and JustFlight fleet, so very high quality and performance are worth it). Smooth FPS and good textures are important to me in default planes or addons

5) Time for flying is scarce and easily interrupted, so fewer choices and spending time on updating or figuring out issues helps with this

5) Why doesn’t the freebie Piper Dakota we all got have a rotating beacon on the tail - or maybe mine fell off? I adore this plane otherwise. 😂

Anyone new to this hobby or those with limited means should hopefully find this all very encouraging, as well as anyone looking to try a new sim - if one has an OK-ish PC, for a limited investment, there is much fun to be had a simplicity is great*

*this is the same guy who has to box up over 250 die cast airliner models to sell to a dealer this week and has embraced the original “black box” NES Golf, so take my ramblings about the joy of simplicity as those of a 51 year old dude that may be confused but is, in general, sick of “too much”

In a nutshell, less is more.

On 8/24/2026 at 11:57 AM, ryanbatc said:

I absolutely need decent freeware or payware airports when I sim. Many default airports don't even have any buildings at all lol.

I'm the opposite - I dont mind the default airports at all, probably due to my own lack of familiarity with airports in general (I'm not a pilot, or in the industry IRL)

I only have a couple of add-ons installed. Two payware helicopters and the Miltech Mission Hub. No other scenery, although I did have the updated Toronto Pack in msfs2020. I find Toronto looks fine with PG turned on and a decent TLOD, thats my benchmark. I don't fly to a lot of major hubs or international airports, mostly GA flights and and a lot of smaller strips. There's some helipad add-ons I've been eyeing however....

I did not mind basic buildings and airports back when I used Flight Unlimited 3 between 1999 and 2008, but this is 2026. I want the most detailed airports that I can get these days, including all of that lovely internal modelling. I would rather have massive amounts of detail at 25fps than default detail at 100fps.

Edited August 25Aug 25 by Christopher Low

On 8/24/2026 at 11:57 AM, alexcolka said:

In a nutshell, less is more.

But in this case, I think its simply less.

As with Ryan above, there are few included airplanes of a quality or type that I would be interested in flying. And default (as in non-bespoke) MSFS fields are simply awful for two basic reasons. All of the misplaced runway/taxiway signs and all of the misplaced lights, both of which often block access to runways and taxiways (yes, I know you can taxi right over them, so yay?). And the non-representative buildings that are SO not airport buildings. As an example, the hangar where I used to base my airplane was in a typical set of rows of light aircraft T-hangars. In MSFS, they're sorta there, but about 2 stories tall, and have no depth. Basically built for no aircraft design that exists. They're simply ridiculous and not representative of anything I've ever seen anywhere at any airport. I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. If anything, default small to medium GA fields are the worst.

If default serves your purpose, more power to ya but it sure ain't for me.

'Nuff said. Thank goodness MSFS remains reasonably open, and thank goodness for the many talented payware and freeware creators out there who fill the many gaps.

Scott

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

I would rather have massive amounts of detail at 25fps than default detail at 100fps.

I'd rather have something in the middle. I do think some of the ultra-detailed internal modelling is a little self-indulgent on the part of the artist, perhaps forgetting that it's a flight sim. I like my GA airports with lovely details and high quality modelling and texturing. But I never set foot in building interiors.

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

back when I used Flight Unlimited 3 between 1999 and 2008.

Your just showing off.😁

Flight Unlimited.

What a mess that was. It was so exciting when it came though.

I can still remember the day I bought it.

good post, thanks

I went default a couple of months ago for a good while.

Well, it was a good experience overall, and I believe I could live with it.

Mind you I consider "default" also the airplanes launched by Asobo / Inibuilds / MS from time to time as "Legends".

I even decided to only install through the Marketplace those Inibuilds aircraft I purchased and was previously installing through their app.

As others wrote above, MSFS 2024 default is so good that it's perfectly doable for a simmer like me :-)

On 8/24/2026 at 5:57 PM, ryanbatc said:

I wouldn't be able to cope with a default sim. There's only 3 or maybe 4 aircraft that are solid. And then the airports... Msfs airports are the biggest letdown. They use huge chunky buildings that don't remotely resemble hangars (at small airports). Or they use tiny buildings that only have man sized doors lol. Terminals don't look like terminals.

Exactly this. Then there are also the taxiway lights splattered all over the place in some locations. I could never fly with default airports in MSFS. In X-Plane I find the default scenery lacking, which keeps me from using it without addons.

10 hours ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

Your just showing off.😁

Flight Unlimited.

What a mess that was. It was so exciting when it came though.

I can still remember the day I bought it.

Flight Unlimited 3 (plus the Flight Unlimited 2 San Francisco scenery) was a great simulator back in its day. Very limited as far as global coverage was concerned, but those 20,000 square miles of high resolution terrain gave me far more enjoyment than the entire globe in Microsoft Flight Simulator at that time.

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Flight Unlimited 3 (plus the Flight Unlimited 2 San Francisco scenery) was a great simulator back in its day. Very limited as far as global coverage was concerned, but those 20,000 square miles of high resolution terrain gave me far more enjoyment than the entire globe in Microsoft Flight Simulator at that time.

I just remember the ATC portion that was a complete mess and the reason I bought it. It did look good though. Amazing actually.

The ATC in Flight Unlimited 2 and 3 was very impressive! It was the first time that ATC had been done in a flight simulator, and it worked really well. I remember it even correctly asked pilots to wait before crossing an active runway, and then actually allocated space in the ATC sequence to give you permission to cross before the next aircraft departed. Try that these days, and ATC will basically ignore you until every single aircraft in what could be a massive queue has departed.

On a side note, I also preferred the way that the Flight Unlimited 2/3 ATC described this. "Cleared to cross runway xx", instead of "continue taxi" 🙄

Edited August 26Aug 26 by Christopher Low