mrueedi

Here is a comparison between new and old. It shows significant changes how the landscape is rendered. Improved are e.g. the too large trees in MSFS2020, which create this too grainy appearance. Images of the real place are here click:

Imho the most disturbing thing is this: There was a an announcmenent but the details are not known. What would a grown up person do? Wait until the required information is available and then draw a conclusion. What happened here? People filled the information gaps with the worst possible assumptions and acted as if they would be true. Guys, there is no point in getting angry, nervous or offensive before any of these alleged issues would be confirmed from MS side. It concernes me, that so many are willing to fill the lacking information with negativity rather than wait until the picture becomes clearer. Patience is so much more healthy than vexation. You can rest assured, that all these questions will be 100% clarified before you will need to decide anything. Get accustomed to the idea, that more and more information will become available over the next 10 months, not the next 10 days. For now, it is sufficient to know, that the current experience will be frozen but anyway stay available (<= that this is mentioned in the MS faqs is a novelty, because any older sim like FSX implicitely remains available too. For MSFS2020, this is newsworthy because in order to keep-the-lights-on, we need the confirmation that the cloud infrastructure will remain available). And if you want a better base experience than MSFS2020, you will have to buy it.

From the MSFS entry screen -> go to OPTIONS -> GENERAL OPTIONS -> MISC -> CREDITS (for 3 versions). There you will get a list of the whole team. Good luck trying to count everybody!

Imho, even as somebody who does not miss anything in the MSFS camp, I can admit that the lighting in XP12 looks good enough that it is a matter of personal taste which one somebody prefers.

like this? Google Maps

You could fly the A310, which is the Airbus copy paste of the 767 from a pilot perspective. And, if you study the history of both aircraft a bit more, you would even find that they both have the same age, so the A310 actually should be considered as a native Airbus design, rather than a rip off of the 767.

My question would be not only about default avionics but also which payware addon in any other sim has better Garmin systems than MSFS default?

The FCOM describes what the pilot sees and experiences. A sim addon, that recreates just that will certainly be a very good and realistic simulation. If you consider the FCOM as requirement specification (in software development, a comprehensive user manual basically contains the information you would find in an excellent requirement specification), you can develop against it and cover basically the entire functionality a pilot would notice.

Why do you think this is the case? I am not sure whether still a lot of data would be missing after reading the following 6404 pages: A350-1000 Fcom | PDF | Aircraft | Transport (scribd.com)

30cm is ZL19 which is more coarsely than MSFS in many places. Checking at the first two random places in two countries I can clearly see the railway ties which require a resolution of less than 30cm. Also for MSFS, the tiles have been made seamless and color-homogised.

Why? This only happen to steam users.

Yes, no, yes, yes, no, yes, no, yes As I am interested not only in aviation, but also in geography, maps, history and even culture, bushtrips imho are a great way to visit and explore regions. Piloting skills might indeed not be super challenged when flying bush trips. But you still can make great use of the WT NXi avionics (e.g. by programming a visual approach when nearing the destination). And learning to navigate based on the information from the flight log and maps by looking out of the window is very rewarding. Not having planned the route by myself results in this special "I am so curious what follows next"-feeling. Many times after the flights, I opened google maps to recap where I flew, looked the up visited places, learned about history and geography. The routes flying down the Balkan or from Bordeaux to the Mont Blanc (and others) have engraved in my memory (flying with VR) in a way that I could repeat the flights precisely as long as I will live without looking again at a map. I remember these flights as if I had flown there with a real little GA aircraft. To some degree bushtrip are like an inbuilt offering of the same you would get from certain virtual airlines... And, as this kind of replicating real flights was so fascinating to me, I have created this addon, which lets you fly real flights that happened in 1960 with the PC-6 prototype to support a Himalaya expedition. Still standing world records were broken (landing above 18000ft), the crew flew an air show over Kathmandu downtown, there were glacier landings mixed with long range desert flying, a flight from Europe to Nepal, an engine failure, ..... It was and is an incredible adventure and I was absorbed for half a year to create the bushstrips exactly as as Max Eiselin (the expeditionleader) described the flights in his book "Ascent on the Dhaulagiri" but I can tell you, the user interest is basically zero, therefore I consider this small hint also not as advertisement, just a little heads-up whats possible with bushtrips. This is the addon.

May I ask what's the difference between the VNAV in 747 and 787? Why is the 787 VNAV bad? What does it do wrongly?

Indeed, the choice for a dev basically is either "deleting my addon is cumbersome" or "Yes, I can delete my addon, but I dont have to anymore, because on that other platform most users won't bother to even find it". Its also a bit misleading looking at the large famous devs. Hendriks ships maybe will live on when hosted somewhere else (and they deserve it!). But e.g. my 5-6 addons, which are hosted on fs.to, are downloaded less than 10 times per day. I have no doubts, that moving them to another platform in principal would be the same like actually deleting them alltogether. As a small dev I do have users in mind and the convenience for users. I do appreciate the range fs.to is giving me. Without that, my freeware work would probably not exist.

The latter brings range to the formers. Less range should be a concern to the formers on other platforms. And ... if a site offers such a low barrier to access freeware as fs.to (and this includes being the single page, where you get everything), that page will require dimensions infrastructure-wise which will be very costly and which will probably cause that other platform looking out for money in similar ways as fs.to does.

This is no wonder as the base sim is fixing so many ai issues: Fixed ATC window displaying wrong runway number in some non-towered airports Fixed SimConnect injected traffic planes not following the assigned flight plan Fixed live traffic planes taxi throttle Fixed live traffic planes incorrectly following departure procedures Fixed live traffic planes staying stuck at hold short in some airports Fixed live traffic planes sometimes taking off without clearance Fixed live traffic planes staying at low altitude after takeoff Fixed SimConnect injected traffic being often unable to depart from the departure gate Fixed traffic planes causing performance issue in the World Map Fixed live traffic planes sometimes not showing nameplates Fixed live traffic planes sometimes spawning at an incorrect location and being unable to move Fixed live traffic planes staying at low altitude during go around Fixed a crash where ATC uses an invalid runway number The AI addons now need to remove the workarounds that were needed in the "broken state" again.

The Longitude has just 500 nmi range less, but is larger, faster and cruises higher.

This German guy (who is not Jörg!) is the one I have a contract with to sell my addon as payware on flightsim.to. Also the money they are paying me comes from the exact same payer (address). Could it be, that these other LLCs provide just the ads on flightsim.to?

I guess the .to top level domain is simply used by them to have a catchy url. The website is EU based to my knowledge. At least as a payware vendor there, I got signed a contract with them which had this remark: "Please review and sign the document. Please take note that the document consists of a German and English version, while both versions are exactly identical. However, as the Site operator is based in Germany, we need to send you both copies." Place of jurisdiction is Germany and German law applies. The contract has a German Umsatzsteueridentifkations-Nr and Steuernummer:. and the "retailer" is a person with a full German adress in 55270 Klein-Winternheim. I wont post the name though.

At least for me freeware, which can not be found on fsto is not existing. I will never find it and I will not search for it. Imho this sounds reasonable...

If you buy the sim on steam and you then purchase something in the inbuilt marketplace, the developers get a smaller percentage of the paid price. Thats something many dont know.

No, you have to read the release notes 😉 These are covered too: C172 Classic Cap 10 DA-40 TDI DV-20 L-39 (Athena, Blue Ice, Pipsqueak, Robin 1, Sarance) P-51D (Wee Willy, Lady B, Strega, Miss America) T-6 (Almost Perfect, Baby Boomer) This results in the slightly bizarre situation that GA avionics-wise the majority of MSFS default aircraft surpass the capabilities offered by basically any existing default or payware aircraft in any desktop flightsim. E.g. with all the money in the world you won't get a more realistic G3000 implementation on a desktop PC than the TBM has from the MSFS standard edition.

This can also happen if USB cables are too long and/or connectors are worn out.

A multi user shared cockpit is actually available. And with AAU1 the Hjet has to catch up with the TBM, Longitude, CJ4...

My suggestion would also be VR. 2D simming is like "visiting" cities in Google Street view. You "were not there". For me VR flights are perceived and remembered like real flights. Not only situational awareness but also feeling the attitude and the position in the air is so much improved, that I no longer think that circuits and manual procedures can be flown precisely without VR. At least I cant. Turning the head during the downwind for a split second is enough to exactly evaluate where the runway is and whether "everything is looking good" to start turning into base. Absolutely! For me only in VR do the little eyebrow windows of the older versions start to make sense and I like them very much now. The head is turned where real pilots are looking too. Maybe while leaning forward a bit. In VR you look closely to something by leaning there. But still you perfectly feel the cramped space cockpits typically have. I also like the usage of the mouse very much in VR. It works very well. At least as good as on the screen.