RALF9636

I'm in the same boat and just decided to start with TrackIR for the new sim. So some input from long time users would be appreciated. How do you use TrackIR in the sim? Do you have it always on? Or just at certain stages of the flight? Or only in certain views and off in others (programming the GPS / FMC for example?). Do you use it in airliners as well as in GA aircraft? Do you still use a Hatswitch as well at all? How do you set up the motion adjustments? Deadzones or not (large or small?)? Slopes or steady movements? Do you have different setups for different aircraft? Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences.

I agree, historic weather and traffic is a most essential feature for me. Being limited to live weather and traffic is problematic if - you want to fly at a certain time of day in the sim and/or in a certain time zone - you want to fly at a certain time of year in the sim - you want to train the same scenario repeatedly several times - you want to relive the weather you experienced once in real live - you need to pause the sim (at least if you pause for a prolongued time) - you use time compression / accelerated sim rate - you need to save the flight midflight and continue the flight another day - etc. In all these cases live weather and live traffic would just be plain wrong.

Thanks for the interview. Always great to see the enthusiasm these guys show for aviation, flightsimming and their product.

I still wonder if there is historic weather in the sim. From what could be seen so far in the weather settings the time and date can also be set but it is still unclear to me if that includes the real time weather for that (historic) time.

Exactly my feelings. Thanks for posting.

What could be seen on this forum today is probably just a little foretaste of what is to be expected on August 18th. It will probably not be possible any more to have a constructive discussion about problems and their possible solutions or maybe different settings and their effects with all that noise of people with excessive expectations or a tendency to talk everything down. Nothing wrong with pointing out shortcomings but what was happening here today was completely out of perspective in large parts. Someone suggested a tips and tricks subforum for constructive discussions only and I can only hope that will work. I'm sure many of the Alpha testers would be of a great help for those who are really looking for solutions or hints and not only finding their joy in downtalking the new sim. But those valuable posts would be very hard to find in all that noise.

I wholeheartedly agree. Accessibility will be the key for the success of MSFS. No need to install and maintain several dozens of addons just to get a basic enjoyable simming experience. No need to acquire expert skills about how a computer works just to cope with all the necessary tweaks and compatibility and other issues that are inevitable with the messy complex sim / addon installations we have now. Just click an icon and enjoy simming - at the depth level you choose. There will come a time when even some of the most elitist "serious simmers" will get off their high horse and realize that flightsimming actually can be fun - for all kinds of users, from casual arcade-like "gamers" to FSL addicts.

To add to your comment, to me one of the main differences between the FSL Airbus and all other aircraft I had ever used is this: If in the FSL something happens I do not totally understand I always feel the need to get to the bottom of it because I am sure that the exact same thing happens in the real aircraft. In other aircraft my reaction has always been: Well, probably something that hasn't been implemented properly, never mind..." And that makes an immense difference when it comes to immersion. That said I had quite enjoyed the Aersosoft Airbusses for years before I switched to the FSL, so I am confident I will also be able to enjoy the MSFS default A320 for the time being, at least after the few weeks I will have been busy with GA flying anyway.

I just can't imagine that they show us how they record sounds at the real aircraft and work with aircraft manufacturers on aerodynamics and flight models just to end up saying: "go ahead and buy the 3PD aircraft to replace our mediocre default aircraft." I expect many thinks we have learned to take for granted in the flight sim genre over the last 15 years, will change soon.

You are both of course right that it seems to be a waste of ressources to create a high quality aircraft just to put it into "arcade-mode". But also take into consideration that the default aircraft are a showcase for what Asobo can do. If Asobo wants to sell more aircraft as DLC (just saw something about a Q400) the default aircraft have to be convincing.

I don't understand why people again and again come up with the concept that an arcade-like easy to fly aicraft and a high quality aircraft with decent system depth have to be mutual exclusive, thus default aircraft could never be complex. They can create an aircraft with high system depth and then just add an optional "arcade-mode" or some kind of realism slider for the "kids" - and have catered for both.

I also hope that the default aircraft will reach at least Aerosoft quality. And I don't think that would be eating the 3PD's lunch: First, there is always room for improvement, only the bar is set higher. Even FSL still adds something new with every update. And second, 3PD can still make all those A319, A321, A330 etc.

To me the interesting question is not if the default A320 will reach the FSL level (most probably not), but if Asobo keeps continuously improving the existing default aircraft, both airliners and GA, after release. With that I mean not only bug-fixing but adding system depth and flight model finetuning over time. I hope they will do.

I will most probably buy the FSL Airbus when and if it comes to MSFS. Nevertheless I also hope the gap between the default A320 and the FSL quality would continuously be narrowing with further development of MSFS.

Seems I shouldn't be too worried about the lack of seaplanes any more...

But aren't SODE and GSX already doing that (the parking guidance) for any airport in P3D?

Sounds familiar. 😄

Couldn't have said it better. I have to admit though, that I've learned a lot about computers in the 10+ years I have been trying to cope with all the issues of FSX and P3D, their addons and (in)compatibilies. And that knowledge served me well also outside of my simming so I can't say I would have wanted to miss it all. But I came to a point when I just got fed up with all that, and that was already a few years ago. The announcement of MSFS was a more than welcome light at the end of the tunnel. Nevertheless I still enjoy P3D the best I can. I just stopped any tweaking, updating and installing addons as well as bothering with longstanding annoyances completely because I expect it to be a phase-out-model for me anyway. Ironically that improved my simming experience with P3D because I spend more time flying and less time tweaking now. The time to phase-out P3D is now getting closer every day though.

Agreed, I get your point. But I wouldn't call it a cynic response. That kind of spoiled my joy of being quoted by them. 😉 Maybe just not post before your first cup of coffee in the morning? 🙂

Thanks for your reply, MSFS Team! Still love your commitment to a long term project and looking forward to be part of it after release! Btw how anyone can consider this a cynical way to admit the sim will be full of bugs on release is beyond me. Just too much negativity here.

I don't know to what extent this goes but from my user's perspective that seems to be a good thing because it hopefully prevents the complete mess of addon installations I have now in P3D, where every addon installs - and updates - in a different way, into a dozen different locations and configuration files all over the place. I would appreciate very much if MSFS forced 3PD into a standardized method. Might cause some inconvenience for 3PD but would save users from a lot of troubles.

From what could be seen from the official videos a great deal of the ground services are already included in MSFS. Nevertheless there will always be room for improvement, so FSDT will still be in business, I guess.

To me it seems as though the shortcomings of FSX / P3D are now represented as a feature by some. To my understanding the reason why high quality aircraft like the Majestic Q400 or the FSL Airbus are working outside the sim is not because the developers chose so for their convenience and FSX / P3D generously provided them with this option. In contrary the developers were forced to create their models outside the sim as a workaround because FSX / P3D's own means regarding systems and aerodynamics are so limited that it's not possible to create a high quality aircraft within FSX / P3D's own means. And these external workarounds are also the reason why many addons break with every incremental update of P3D and need to be updated each time. At least this is how the developers always advertised their products. In contrast to that I haven't seen any aircraft developer complain yet about restricted possibilities in MSFS. On the contrary those who already gave statements sounded quite enthusiastic and said they won't just port over their aircraft but want to take their time to take full advantage of the possibilities of the new sim. So just maybe the means that come with MSFS now provide everything the developers need to create a high quality aircraft, without the need to workaround limitations of the sim by creating own external systems that should have been included in the sim itself in the first place. And just maybe the lack of external workarounds will lead to a more stable and better performing sim and to addons remaining compatible after updates of the main sim. Of course addon developers now have to adapt to the new means and that will probably take them some time. But that doesn't necessarily mean that this change is a bad thing - at least not for those who are ready to leave their comfort zone for something new and not see every change as a threat.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. That really makes the decision against the DVD version quite easy.

Interesting idea and it does sound plausible. I don't see a need to dumb down the whole sim. Just adding an "arcade mode" with simplistic flight models would be enough. And maybe it's already included and that is exactly what could be seen in some of the leaks?