BusheFlyer

On 4/13/2021 at 11:16 PM, EvidencePlz said:

Yes they are all bad. Flight models of most of them are worse than GTA 5 and takes a lot of tinkering to get them to a semi-acceptable state. Most Instruments and automation are horrible and completely wrong. In comparison the default aircraft in DCS World and XP11 are excellent. In MSFS 2020 The only way you can have a point A to B flight reliably is if you hand-fly the plane, and this is valid for not only the default but the third parties as well. The only decent aircraft in MSFS 2020 that I'll feel a bit more comfortable with flying realistically following realistic procedures in VATSIM, Pilotedge etc is the CJ4 with Navigraph and Working TItle's mod.

Your entire statement is the work of a troll. Just absolute nonsense from a person who clearly and very obviously has no actual idea of what they are talking about. Hopefully the OP will have had the sense to see it for what it is and instead listens to the people with real world experience.

There is one book that is considered the bible and almost mandatory reading for pilots: Stick n Rudder. Never before or since has there been a better book to learn about flying and it is as relevant to a sim pilot as it is to a real world 747 captain. 

Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the Art of Flying By Wolfgang Langewiesche | Used | 9780070362406 | World of Books

It's not hard to read at all, it is very human. I highly recommend this to you.

6 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Amateur hour at Asobo ... Sorry lots of people are going to take offence at my comments but at the moment they have yet to prove me otherwise no matter how pretty the sim is.

Oh how terrible! I wonder if Asobo are even aware they have to prove their professionalism to you Maxis. Perhaps you should write a letter to the manager of Asobo, informing them of their duty. My friend Karen told me this can be very effective, you should try it.

Just to clear this up, rudder trim is not used to counter 'crosswind'. A TBM like all aircraft is designed to fly at a speed range, usually at cruise power no rudder trim is required. If you depart from that speed range, for example; when climbing or descending or in slow straight and level flight, then you will require a rudder input. Rudder trim then comes into play. It is as simple as that, establishing a crab angle has nothing to do with rudder trim.

Heh sounds great.. but for that sort of dough I think I would rather spend it on avgas. Maybe some terrible weather over winter might change my mind.

Yeah, definitely can't run the G1000 and G3000 mods together at the moment. 😕

Sadly does not work for me.. the C208 screens are frozen when this is installed.

2 minutes ago, overt said:

Joking aside, the constant thunder and lightning is incredibly annoying.

You have angered Thor with this comment.

5 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

 Here is my review below. I do not have  problems with sensitivity which I set to -50% for roll and pitch

 

Interesting.. I have no clue on why the control surfaces are responding as they do for me, I don't have any issues with the default aircraft. Just this one. It is basically too frustrating to actually fly because it is near impossible to maintain straight and level flight, it's either pitching up or down, if the nose is dropping, slight back pressure and instantly it 'jumps' to the up notch, forward pressure.. back to the down notch. There is absolutely no finesse.. it feels like there are about 4 deflections in all directions with nothing in between.

I picked it up.. can't really attest to it's accuracy of flight model due to problem below, what I can say the landing gear is WAY too spongy, the sounds are so out of whack.. fuel pump is about 200% or greater too loud.. strange loud grinding noise on taxi. I refuse to even put the fuel pump on, because it so overpoweringly annoying.

The flight model.. from what I can see this is very crude. The issue I have is the controls.. tiniest movement on elevators does not translate to anything other than a sudden jump up or down.. like the elevators are some how on a notch. You get absolutely no translation of small control inputs (slight back pressure for example). I have tried with response curves on yoke using FSUIPC but same deal. The ailerons and trim is also similarly effected. It is totally unrealistic. It seems that the controls are really coarse. I do not have this problem with any of the default aircraft.

Very disappointed and this needs either an update or a refund.

6 hours ago, SPowell42 said:

Not sure I agree with that. 40 years ago the cost of a new C172 was about the same as the cost of a new car. Now it's 8x or more. I think many more people actually owned their own airplanes back then, where now the only way a normal family can afford a plane is through rental, joint ownership, or a flying club. All three of those have serious drawbacks for someone who just wants to go out and fly.

I will admit though I am uncertain how the ongoing, recurrent costs such as annuals, hangering, etc. are compared to the past.

Scott

Scott, I can only go on my own experience of aircraft ownership (and the experience of aviation buddies) the fixed and operating costs are easy to assess from an affordability standpoint. The thing that gets you, is all the unexpected costs.. things like sudden oil leaks appearing.. because a seal has failed, dings in props needing filing, avionics playing up (crackly radios and so on). Most aircraft the majority of people own are old or near ancient machines which have in many cases changed hands a dozen times, little faults and snags come up all the time.

I highly doubt you will find an aircraft owner that will make a financial argument to you about private ownership. 

1 minute ago, marsman2020 said:

The G1000 won't load the fixes in many cases.

SOL without them.

So, your in a sim.. go to another airport and fly an ILS perhaps? You want to find something specifically that is not working great yet and pick that as the thing you must do just so you can whine and complain about it? Suspect this is a generational thing. Anyway it doesn't sound to me like your going to enjoy flying or flight simming at all, it is not for everyone. Have you consider train simulator?

1 minute ago, marsman2020 said:

You're the one who came in here minimizing other peoples concerns just because the particular type of simulation you want to do works, while the types of simulation many other people want to do is broke, and won't be fixed for months if at all.

Then you claimed to be able to do things in the sim, that are plainly impossible given the totally broken avionics.

Currently, as far as I am aware.. the GPS is displaying RNAV fixes on the screen is it not? Yes the autopilot may or may not track them correctly. How exactly are you finding this impossible? What part of flying the procedure is giving you trouble? The approach plate will give you all the information you need to conduct the approach providing you have those fixes and can navigate to them.

4 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

But how do I fly the approaches into RNAV only airports in IMC without a working GPS?  Since you said it's possible.....

Why don't you elaborate that a bit more.. why not add to it.. "with an engine fire.." for extra effect? The answer to that question is you would do what you would do in real life when confronted with a problem, divert to a nearby ILS for your descent and then fly VFR above MSA to the RNAV only airport if weather permits.

Read my post above.. I couldn't care any less about your experience going forward with MSFS.. perhaps you will continue to rant and rave on forums feeling impotent or perhaps you can learn some civility, and that you don't have to exaggerate everything you say. 

9 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

BusheFlyer says he can fly "the approaches" without a GPS.  I'd like to know his secret method for flying approaches to RNAV only airports in IMC with no working GPS.  Since he's stated he can do it, there must be a way?  Is there a how-to guide for this somewhere?

I'm happy with MSFS and you are not, in your world "totally broken".. I have tried to give you examples of how you can overcome the current limitations and gaps in your knowledge but instead you wish to persist in these childish responses and yet more instance that it's all broken. This is not going to go anywhere constructive.. so okay.. it's broken.. tough world kid, perhaps go do something fun.

15 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I have no interest in trying FS9 or FSX... that won't change the fact that nearly every aspect of this simulator requires an add-on or a mod to make good.

Yeah, okay.. bye Virtual-Karen!

1 hour ago, marsman2020 said:

 I said nothing about the AP. Just that in FSX, you could load in the approach waypoints to fly manually.  Which doesn't event work in MSFS in many cases.

I was really enjoying flying one of the bush flights with the Savage Cub with no GPS using just SkyVector VFR charts and a stopwatch.  But the 1.9.3 patch broke my flight so new legs don't register, so I can't finish it, and I don't feel like repeating hours of time or messing teleporting my plane in Dev mode to get back to where I was.  Maybe Asobo will fix it in a future update, maybe not. (I'm not holding my breath)

This has nothing to do with pilot ability or inability, you are being disingenuous and conflating two unrelated things.

If you want to go do VFR stuff with no navaids or fly VOR to VOR great on you, but that isn't what everyone wants, and the avionics in most of the aircraft in this "simulator" are totally broken in many cases terms of being able to use current practices and procedures.

 

No, this has EVERYTHING to do with ability, this is not disingenuous, I have made it pretty clear because I am correct. There is no grey area here.. you are complaining about the GPS functionality being 'totally broken' and saying you can not use navaids or fly approaches as a result. I am telling you the fact that you are so dependent on the GPS is self evident that that is the only acceptable option you believe you have. I can do a full IFR flight plan just fine, I can do the approaches. The GPS is just not important to me. This is not brain science or some hidden art, this is basic rudimentary knowledge that anyone flying airways SHOULD have. Having a garmin do all the thinking for you is fine and acceptable but only if you know HOW it thinks.

So in the meantime, whilst MSFS is developing and improving you might have to use your brain a bit more, is that such really such a bad thing to get all upset about? 

Look, I understand not all flight sim pilots really hold ATPL's or Instrument Ratings. In the real world, you can not pick up the knowledge to get one in a few hours of reading. Contrary to how some might think it to be, an IR is a bit more complicated than the instructor showing you how to select an approach on a garmin unit and press APR, thank you.. that will be $26,000 please.

In the real world, that is the depth of knowledge you will need to fly airways (and if carrying paying passengers, you will need considerable experience in the right seat). In the sim world none of that is the case, yet people like to fly airways and do approaches without ever having real world experience or the appropriate training, which I am guessing is at the root of your current frustration.

So perhaps I am being over harsh on you, I apologize.

9 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

What a load of elitist "my hand flying is better than you" word not allowed making excuses for Asobo's poorly QAed product.

VORs and ILS systems are being turned off across the country.  We are 20 years into widespread use of GPS navigation.  Expecting things like being able to load an RNAV approach into the avionics is not "forgetting how to fly", it's expecting basic IFR equipment to be fit for purpose in the sim and basic functionality to work out of the box.  Things that worked in the FSX GPS 14 years ago!

 

 

Elitist? Pilotage was taught to all students since before the war. Decades of accumulated aviation wisdom, that it was required that ALL pilots could draw upon to conduct safe and efficient flights. If today you are saying that it is 'Elitist' then I guess the warnings I heard many mention when GPS first appeared in the cockpit have come to pass.

Turn off GPS and your lost.. you don't know what your cross track wind component is, you have no idea what your ETA is at your next way point. All because the simple and basic skills to tell you all of this have been deferred to a shiny glass screen. Elitist... 

Furthermore, why are you even bothering to worry about flying RNAV approaches? Because it is self-evident that you have no understanding on what an RNAV approach actually is. Your plan is to select an RNAV approach from the shiny screen and hit APR on the autopilot.. and convince yourself you have just flown an RNAV approach? Congratulations..

Any of the default planes that are in any way IFR capable.. can fly a successful RNAV approach as it stands.. they have working NAV/DME do they not? You understand how to get a fix using those right? You can even use the autopilot to follow a heading, and v/s mode to follow your rule of three to minimums.

I am not espousing some elitist stuff. This is rudimentary knowledge that unless you understand how to do you have no business conducting RNAV approaches accept as a form of self-deceit that you can fly them. Sorry to be harsh, and yes this is just a simulator, but to hear the way you are complaining about the GPS and talking about RNAV approaches is ridiculous. Remember this, there are are entire generations of pilots who have crossed entire countries with pilotage, never once being lost, knowing this stuff wasn't the exception it was the rule..

2 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

<snip> Whining and complaining </snip>

Very well, sounds like it is not for you. Probably best to forget the whole experience and try something else, after all, it wouldn't make any sense to spend your free time doing something you dislike so much.

5 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Lol, now I don't understand your comment at all. Even with the persistent bugs, I'm really enjoying MSFS. But look at my setup. I got tired of all the snafus with setting up my controllers so I installed FSUIPC 7 which solved that problem. I installed Little Navmap because the stock flightplanning is weak and and the stock VFR map is next to worthless.

Next I installed Navigraph because the default MSFS navigation database is full of errors. I bought REX WeatherForce because the live weather supplied by the sim doesn't match RL weather. I installed the IVAO AI aircraft package and converted my AIG schedules with AIFP. Why? Because the default AI traffic was so unrealistic.

I installed the G1000 mod because the stock G1000 was actually a G99.95. I'm toying with using Pilot2ATC (which I own) but for now the default ATC is close enough.

Having 3rd party replacements is a good thing. With them the base sim can be made to function as a viable flight simulator. That's nothing new. P3d5 has to be propped up in a similar manner. But don't ignore the obvious shortcomings of MSFS.

If it can be improved then sure.. but the flight planner works to do basic stuff. Personally I just use a sectional map because I am used to it (and probably a bit old fashioned), if IFR then JeppView for the plates and I am fine. Real world weather is superb and is working most of the time, the metar injection method is a huge step backwards IMHO. Metars are only accurate for the moment that it is taken and even then different stations will report inconstant cloud bases, there is nothing dynamic about that. What about weather over oceans?

I agree the G1000 is limited..

There are some shortcomings which I am sure will be addressed, I am just puzzled however why some people think so much is wrong that they ignore all the good things. They say they can't do this and they can't do that.. that is just nonsense.. what they really mean is they can't automate this and they can't automate that. They have either forgotten how to fly or are so used to the ever increasing automation that they can no longer do without it.

5 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Yes, that seems to be the problem.  My expectations were high.  Maybe it was the marketing.  Maybe I just have unrealistic expectations.  I've not played a flight sim since the late 80s so comparing this to recent predecessors is not something I can do.

But now my expectations are suitably low... I guess coming down to the same level as everyone else here.  I need mods to make many aircraft systems functional, I need mods to make my airports and scenery look more accurate, I need something additional to fix the horrible ATC or just ignore it (which is a big part of flying).  

I'm all about immersion and there are many immersion breaking issues with this sim at the moment.

I think you are looking at what it not working as opposed to what IS working. All the planes have ALL of the critical systems modelled in some form.. the fact that some things like cabin heat or the cigar lighter might be marked (in-op) is really of no consequence.

I fly in the real world and have done for coming up on half a century. I find MSFS to be very immersive, perhaps it's because I have many memories to fill in those blanks a bit.. I don't know, but I have been totally impressed with how good MSFS is.

8 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I'm not suggesting the sim is unusable or unplayable.  It does work.  What I'm suggesting is that everything is half-baked.  Nothing is great (well except maybe the lighting).  The planes all have issues, especially with AP and key systems in airliners, most airports look terrible unless they are hand-crafted, the scenery is good at high altitude but falls apart as soon as you get closer and many landmarks are missing, and mountain faces look horribly blurry and lacking detail.  The ATC is absolute rubbish. The weather is good but lacking an ability to set something up to test minimums, the flight planner is using different data from every other flight planner making it challenging to duplicate real-world flight routes, the log book seldom records everything accurately.

There's nothing that is done to a very high standard.

So modelling the entire planet, modelling 10's of thousands of airports and airstrips, 40+ scale 3D models of real aircraft, photogrammetry, the list goes on. It is an incredible achievement. Perhaps the issue is your expectations are set maybe a little too high. The weather, the flight models and so on will all improve over time.

In terms of flightplanning.. my advice.. use a real sectional map and fly it like you would in real life. It has literally never ever been as easy or as good as this in order to plan a flight. Gone are landclass autogen cities and towns. Now you can visually see your waypoints in the photographic scenery.

If you want to do IFR flights, then use skyvector perhaps and fly the route in the sim. Nothing stands in your way of doing that. 

1 minute ago, OSM said:

With my 30+ years Game Simulation experience I tell you - YES! Microsoft and Asobo do EVERYTHING REALLY WELL! What you see right now is how HUGE Unified Global Earth Simulation Empire growing up. Very soon we will see Combat Flight Simulator, Train, Truck and Ship simulators with all seaports, terminals and Economy simulator. MSFS2020 just the beginning! 😃

Wife (or.. mistress) simulator coming soon.

Also another thought, if your concern is over the large passenger jets.. these are never realistic anyway. Nobody solo's a 747, intentionally anyway.

In terms of community mods, they are definitely improving on the default stuff.. with the Garmins and such. But be wary of companies who rush products to market to meet the hype as a quick cash grab, especially companies who have a veritable army of shill accounts to constantly promote their products.