Lucky38i

Ok JD, we get it, you don't like FS24 but you don't have to put on the tinfoil either. I dislike FS24's state as much as any other but there's really no need to make those kind of statements.

I don’t want to doubt the validity of the reviewer but they had 2 issues and both of them can easily be placed as user error. The first was entering a stall at what I guess is cruise, there was no explanation for how they got into stall but I’d guess it was due to not managing the throttle correctly on account of a lack of auto throttle. The ADGs deploying “randomly” could have simply been a misclick, happens to the best of us, I accidentally deployed emergency the emergency gear handle on the F28 on departure, ruined my whole flight. the aircraft not managing turns between close waypoints seems to have been documented as accurate according to a few CRJ pilots. It seems a number of reviewers are reviewing the aircraft as is but haven’t done any previous research into the quirks of the aircraft. Then when experiencing a quirk blame it as a bug or odd behaviour. I’m surprised they didn’t complained about the flaky auto-nav switch on course capture as a bug.

Data packs are to put it softly, prohibitively expensive for an add on developer to even consider. Not to mention the hefty restrictions placed on the usage of said data packs. I’m extremely doubtful of any dev having data packs because of the legal ramifications that come with owning one. They’re primarily reserved for airlines and licensed FTDs

Well not entirely true.. they have fixed up portions of the LNAV in FS20 that was prevalent in previous iterations. There was comments about the engine modelling but I can't comment enough on that. @Stearmandriver can probably comment more.

Licensing isn't a requirement to produce an aircraft, it just provides you with a license to use their logos and trademarks in your products. It also doesn't signify the quality of an addon as we've seen in the past. Don't need permission unless the company is overtly litigious and the only one that does that is Gulfstream. Everyone else is pretty much fair game unless you use their logos and trademark. For example the A300 from iniBuilds is officially titled as `iniBuilds A300-600R Airliner` as opposed to `Airbus A300-600R`. I could be very wrong on this but I don't think the PMDG lineup for MSFS is licensed like it was for P3D. Though like many have mentioned. Bluebird is doing the 757, 767 and... sometime in the future the 787. CSS is doing the entire 737 classic lineup. Bluebird/Milviz, I believe is doing one of the dinosaurs. We have the 727 from FSS and another coming from FSReborn. So there's quite a few here and a lot more currently in development. Sadly Asobo dropped the ball on dev choice for the 707. Though ultimately most of the lineup is on it's way, I guess it's a matter of waiting.

Then a 7800XT or 9070 should suit you fine. For Nvidia a 5080 also works, I would suggest 5070 but that has the least amount of VRAM for all of these. For 1440p any of these cards work. I wouldn’t buy a high VRAM card based on bug Asobo said they’re resolving.

What resolution you’re at matters a lot. If you’re at 1080p a 7900xtx is overkill

Yeah no problem there for a 3 ish hour flight.

This is par the course for an online title though. Eventually the servers are going to be turned off. This isn’t specific to MSFS, this is pretty standard stuff for a GaaS, games as a service which MSFS and in turn The Crew fully fits the bill.

The navigraph charts toolbar? No I use the EFB

Just flew a 3 hour leg with it in VR and didn't experience degradation.

This has been the case with most game storefronts. Whether it's Steam, Xbox, EA or Epic Games. They're all more or less licensing the product to you. The only exception to this is G.O.G games which provides the game DRM free and thus not tied to an account. It's not really an issue with MSFS, it's just a result of moving away from physical media. Though if we're being realistic MSFS is an online game, there will come a point where Microsoft is no longer interested in keeping the lights on, that's just the reality of it. I'd hope a lot of people had realise this as one of the double-edged situations of an online title.

I think you kind of missed the point of the bigger picture. This thread specifically isn't my main complaint, this thread is just one of many of quite frankly.. an exhausting topic. Though if it makes any difference I didn't bother reading the 6 pages because I didn't care enough to. Though according to @JBDB-MD80 I'm being.. sensitive? I clearly ruffled some feathers because I, checks notes, wanted to voice my thoughts on the constant spat back on forth that's been had for the past 6 months. I guess uhh, keep the discussion going I guess.

Personally I'm just a little tired. checking up on Avsim and and this forum is literally just complaining at times. Sometimes you got people pushing the same points despite evidence pointing to the contrary so it's really just complaining just for the sake of. Look I wholeheartedly get it and everyone gets it, Asobo included. Sometimes I just want to talk about flight simming but some people are so hung up on having a spat back and forth on FS24 that its near impossible to just have a chat flight simming. This thread being 6 pages long just reinforces that. I think I may just head back to the screenshots forum.

I always find it funny when Greazer says the most ridiculous thing and then never makes another post in the thread. Yet somehow the threads always end up 5-10 pages where the same arguments are rehashed from just a few days ago. I mean the whole situation is a dead horse and yet there’s somehow still more to argue on it.