ha5mvo

You'll be hard pressed to name much more than 10 "high fidelity" aircraft ever built for FS starting from the Dreamfleet 737 and the 767 PIC way back than. If the inibuild airbus will turn out to be such, then it's an unexpected bonus. Personally I believe it will turn out to be more of a mid-tier , bae-146 level but time will tell. Anyway, there are plenty of options available for those who merely aim at hitting control E and enjoying the scenery. They won't use the higher end planes just as others will never load a default pilatus.

For those who are not familiar from P3D with the addon manager, this is a definite must-have!

Are you sure? If I'm not mistaken the program seems to have a limit on the number of planes it can spawn.

From my point of view, it has two significant drawbacks at this point, namely: 1) 15 planes at Boston is WAY too little. I wonder if the undertaking of monitoring all AI as well as the user is not too much in terms of cpu cycles required to control a larger number of planes. 2) At this point in time, ATC is pretty much canned, in that its user defined from start to finish. Basically, YOU are telling ATC how to control YOUR own aircraft. I reckon a mandatory ability of any decent ATC program is to be to determine dep/arr runways as well as an appropriate procedure.

Yes for both. The AIRPORT button allows for a handy way to flip between dep/app and alternate airports.

I'm not sure they are the most current though. I believe they are the most current of what's available to navigraph. I think you might have older charts where navigraph could not attain the most current ones.

Aivlasoft EFB or little nav map eventually use Navigraph or aerosoft data to keep up to date. The same applies to simbrief. If one is to settle for older charts/navdata then navigraph is not necessary as long as the database is in sync among planner and addons.

There seems to be a lot of demand for ATC. Rightfully enough, the default ATC is as bad as it gets but who uses default ATC? Currently there's no decent 3rd party ATC program so the default is all there is but eventually someone will make one. It's a good bet, that a 3rd party ATC program will be better than whatever ASOBO might come up with. Just like the weather in p3d, a third party developer will do a much better job than the stock offering.

Physics!! First and foremost. They say they will fix the ground physics that are currently a joke. We’ll see how that goes. beside that, expose as much as possible to 3rd party developers. They’ll do a much better job in whatever it may be

he did that too....

2:13:30 for the next minute or so

incorrect! watch the video again!

I wouldn't know about x-plane as I don't use it but why is it either\or ? what's stopping one from having both? isn't that what a "complete" simulation is about?

Like this guy you mean? Start watching at about 2:08.... Maybe the both of us need more practice.... I bet we can use some advice from a senior fleet captain with 2100 hours behind him.....

No , you're not the only one for sure.

And way too much drag on descent...and way off on the pitch/power curve... or else why would they even bother to completely re-model the engine. Did you ever attempt to land it with a x-wind > 10? Heh, don't get me started... 🙂

This really boils down to one's perception of "fun". the MD82 and the 737 are quite different than the airbus, the latter being heavily automated. Some may find an Airbus to be more "boring" while others would appreciate its excellent systems simulation, especially if you intend to use the failures feature. Won't go terribly wrong with either as they are the best the platform has to offer to date.

Darkstar

What I am missing is the ability to cycle through a set of views, like you have with chaseplane, so one can bind those to a 4 way hat switch and run through a couple of “up”, “down”, “left”, or “right” views. As far as I understand, the whole camera system in msfs remains closed for 3rd party developers to improve upon, which is a shame really.

There's a problem with the various videos, streams or "reviews", namely , that one can't get a balanced and objective review of a product in most cases. Drawbacks and faults are either not shown and mentioned or are mentioned very briefly if they are. Long gone are the days one could relay on an honest objective and balanced review as a guide for ones purchase choice. I suppose there are exceptions to this occasionally but they are few and very far between.

That's perfectly fine! Perhaps I am indeed mistaken thinking this is more of a simulator than a game....

No, a 3 knot now wind is a 3 knot wind. If it has an exaggerated effect on all aircraft then there's something wrong with the dynamics of that aircraft or the dynamics engine if you witness this across the board.

.

Popularity is not a valid criterion. Justin Bibber had sold more than the Doors, Britney Spears more than Bowie. Popularity is not synonymous with quality (Most times its the other way around). Flight simulation, or the quality thereof, can be roughly broken down several factors: 1) Flight physics (that includes weather and its effects ) - This is where MSFS still badly lags behind. 2) System simulation - This is up to 3rd party developers really. Again, at this point in time the "study level" (for the lack of a better term) addons on other platform still offer a more reliable and accurate representation of their RL counterpart. ATC and AI are problematic in MSFS, but those are not core qualities for a sim. As I said, it may or may not get there, development certainly doesn't stop but AT THIS POINT IN TIME, its definitely not there yet. While I'm not a senior fleet captain at AA, I did have my fare share of full motion level - D simulators and guess what, the airport IS mostly a slab with a runway on it.....