FS 2020 is a Hot Mess

[W33]

I can see this is going to be another thread the mods are going to close.

 

Why can't you just respect each others opinions and enjoy what you use? If you have to put your point across, to it a manner in which you yourself would life to be spoken to.

 

Honestly, I come here to enjoy flight simulation, but all I see is constant bickering.

 

Please...it really does get tiring and you end up spoiling it for quite a few people.

 

W33

[b3burner]

Honestly, I've been rather pleased. I came in with zero expectations, other than a few of the YouTuber legends said it looked good after their Microsoft Intro trip to Everett(spelling?), Washington in 2018 (I think it was).

 

What I can say is there are no more of those 'UIAutomationCore.dll' file errors I was always getting in FSX, and could never get rid of... right up to today... if I were to run it more than 30 minutes. So I'm already impressed with FS2020 for that reason alone.

 

I'd pretty much given up on flight sim, and had moved onto car racing/crashing games. This has brought me back (at least for the meantime)... so no complaints here... other than the fact that I realize that anytime something new and high tech is released, nobody's hardware is really advanced enough to handle all the sliders to the right. That's a Holy Grail that one comes infinitely close to, but never hits.

 

By the time a user has the hardware to handle the sim, wah-lah, out comes a new one, that now puts the user's newest stuff in the mid-range again. And so the race down the rabbit hole and around-and-around, commences yet once again!

 

I just really don't worry about it. If my comp hasn't heated up to over 90*C and my office hasn't caught on fire... things must be going swimmingly well.

 

My father always said, "Always expect the worst and then you'll never be disappointed."

 

I knew from the get go that this would probably be a middle of the road to "sliders-to-the-left" kind of sim for me. So far, that is no lie, but it works well enough for me.

[Skywatcher12]

 

Honestly, I come here to enjoy flight simulation, but all I see is constant bickering.

 

Please...it really does get tiring and you end up spoiling it for quite a few people.

 

W33

 

Geez...no, it's a great thread and one I'd want to read before I'd buy anything. I don't want to read nothing but, "Oh, it's great!"

You read the thread title, can't be any more blatantly obvious what's in it. How about you skip this thread???

Been nothing in here that an adult can't handle. A little heated discussion an adult should be able to handle.

 

Don't stand up old versions too proudly. They all had their hard starts that have been cushioned in our memory by the passage of decades. FS9 is as much like FS2020 as a tomato is like an apple because they are both red.

 

As far as my screenshot, it has been reduced by 4x its original quality and taken down from HDR because... well.. FS.com file size requires it and HDR doesn't capture well to SDR unless you're some kind of photo-editing master... I am not one. I can't help you with your disappointment, but I assure you that you can't play FS9 at 4k HDR, so please.. be real.

 

My memory has not been cushioned. I am also not comparing FSX as a new release in 2020 as you appear to be. For it's time and at release FSX was very good and virtually bug free. For it's time, MSFS and it's content are not.

 

I'm not going to be one of those people who has to blab how much experience they have but I promise you I understand PRECISELY what I am looking at in the screenshot even taking into consideration what might have been done from the original to have it display on this forum.

[Elvensmith]

A good pilot calculates his fuel burn before he even gets in the plane... try to do better, man. It's a sim, not a game. Real pixels could have been hurt by your lack of planning. :p

 

Well actually as someone mentioned subsequently, there is an issue with fuel consumption on the GA aircraft. The 152 should do >400nm on a full tank, I was down to 35% after 140nm. However I didn't want relating the bug to detract from my role playing experience.

 

As regards FS9, well last time I tried to run it on my PC, wouldn't even start.

 

Default FSX, I still remember the sunken bridges and desert looking terrain even in northern areas, because they screwed up the land class. And if you try running FSX now on a 4K monitor, you need to use Windows magnifier to see the tiny unscaleable font on some of the menus.

 

So like it or not (and yes it does have bugs that Asobo/MS need to sort out) FS20 is the way forward.

[Kurtvw]

Well actually as someone mentioned subsequently, there is an issue with fuel consumption on the GA aircraft. The 152 should do >400nm on a full tank, I was down to 35% after 140nm. However I didn't want relating the bug to detract from my role playing experience.

 

I haven't noticed a fuel consumption bug in the GA planes, the Citations have an issue, and the turboprops are a bit weird too... But the pistons seem fine, the problem is that by default they only have a half tank of gas... So you need to go in there and adjust that before flight.

 

There are a lot of weird things like that... for instance why is the camera drone defaulted to 4% of its available speed, everytime I use that thing I have to set the speed to 100% just to go get the shot I want. 4% works if its attached to the airplane, because it has its speed relative to the aircraft... But if you want to leave the plane on the ground and go do some shot with the drone, its an extra step every time.

 

The fuel thing for the piston planes seems arbitrary. But it's one of those things, once you know you're not getting a full tank right from the start, then you know to check it. Good habit to be in anyhow, at least in real world.

[Kurtvw]

 

My memory has not been cushioned. I am also not comparing FSX as a new release in 2020 as you appear to be. For it's time and at release FSX was very good and virtually bug free. For it's time, MSFS and it's content are not.

 

We disagree on that, clearly had very different experiences.

 

What I'm defending here isn't so much that FS2020 is great - it certainly has issues, and they aren't hard to find.

 

What I am defending against however is people who have zero hours in it coming in and saying what it is and what it is not based entirely on opinions they have read, or watched on youtube. And there is a LOT of that going on.

 

It is certainly not a bad simulator, it is certainly not a kiddie eyecandy sight seeing game. It is in fact a good sim that is going to need some elbow grease to get great.

 

But, anyone showing up expecting the marketing hype to be true is 1) going to be a little disappointed, and 2) kind of a fool for believing marketing hype. This is not a problem unique to this product, or even unique to the software industry. Marketing is a short phrase meaning 'lie to people to get money'.

 

The sim is a great foundation for what should be the next few years to a decade. It is every bit as good and better than any previous version --- But, it does require relearning a lot of UI stuff, and yes, right now it has release bugs... None are fatal problems. They are bugs. They should have been better addressed before release, ,but they weren't.

 

Waiting a couple months to buy this sim would be a wise move for many people. Thats a fact.

 

But the sim doesn't suck. It's really very good.

[Elvensmith]

I haven't noticed a fuel consumption bug in the GA planes, the Citations have an issue, and the turboprops are a bit weird too... But the pistons seem fine, the problem is that by default they only have a half tank of gas... So you need to go in there and adjust that before flight.

 

 

I did and the tank was full to the brim on take off! Been flying lean and not ragging the engine but it does seem to be gulping rather than sipping the (virtual) avgas!

[Kurtvw]

I did and the tank was full to the brim on take off! Been flying lean and not ragging the engine but it does seem to be gulping rather than sipping the (virtual) avgas!

 

Interesting, if it was the aerobat 150/152, that one had a bigger engine so higher consumption. Haven't played with that one yet... Used to have access to a real one, fun little plane. Way more power than the standard 152.

 

I haven't done any long flights in the light Cessnas so I wouldn't have noticed a consumption issue. The Bonanza flight from North Las Vegas to Santa Ynez, the consumption seemed appropriate to the aircraft.

[Michael747]

Hot mess or not, MSFS has had the effect of having developers who were about to release products for P3D v5, abandon those projects in favour of a shiny new game. I just purchased P3d a couple of months ago but feel we are being forced to abandon it, in favour of a scenery simulator

[learpilot]

Hot mess or not, MSFS has had the effect of having developers who were about to release products for P3D v5, abandon those projects in favour of a shiny new game. I just purchased P3d a couple of months ago but feel we are being forced to abandon it, in favour of a scenery simulator

 

True enough !! FS 2020 has great potential but it has a lot of issues that need to be addressed.

[kevinfolsom]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fanboy

 

Thanks Mr Zippy. But is there such a thing as a fangirl also or is it just males?

[golson33]

Boy am I glad I hung onto my FS9 --------------- EVERYTHING works like a dream, like it always did.

[mrzippy]

Thanks Mr Zippy. But is there such a thing as a fangirl also or is it just males?

 

fangirl

fan·girl

/ˈfanɡərl/

Learn to pronounce

INFORMAL

noun

noun: fangirl; plural noun: fangirls; noun: fan-girl; plural noun: fan-girls

a female fan, especially one who is obsessive about comics, movies, music, or science fiction.

verb

verb: fangirl; past tense: fangirled; gerund or present participle: fangirling; past participle: fangirled; 3rd person present: fangirls

(of a female fan) behave in an obsessive or overexcited way.

"I'm still fangirling over this casting"

[Tarffin]

Just don't tell the 17k people playing right now about this or all the people over at r/flightsim. They might just stop playing :)

[bam1220]

Boy am I glad I hung onto my FS9 --------------- EVERYTHING works like a dream, like it always did.

 

Same here. I have the $1 Xbox to PC "trial" so I can test out MSFS. But the game is just a beta kiddie scenery game. No way I will pay for it until the many defects are fixed. Staying with FS9 with all my addons. At least everything works in FS9.

Edited September 5, 2020 by bam1220

[Kapitan]

Same here. I have the $1 Xbox to PC "trial" so I can test out MSFS. But the game is just a beta kiddie scenery game. No way I will pay for it until the many defects are fixed. Staying with FS9 with all my addons. At least everything works in FS9.

 

Unbelievable!! but congratulations if you like it.

Cause in FS9 days (2002 2003) I was a freeware addon developper of 2D cockpits.

I made a cockpit of a 747-200, Caravelle, DC10

boy it was fun

 

My 2D 747 cockpit had interactive buttons that would take you to the galley, upperdeck, to the toilet complete with lock door light on, toilet flush sound, and in cabin you could bump on a passenger that clicking on her she would speak to you, then another button would place you at your seat, click a button and the table came down, call the flight attendant and she would come and speak to you and offer a meal trail hahah those were the days. It was one of the most downloaded cockpits of the time

 

But 2D days are ober

Edited September 5, 2020 by Kapitan

[flytv1]

It does look like when some people are confronted with real facts that they cannot dispute they resort to personal insults and try to kill the messenger.

 

I am convinced that there will be some people that will never accept reality, they are going to believe what they want regardless of facts. Those type of people do not concern me, the ones that do are Real World pilots that either do not know any better, and that will put them, and others around them, in a terrible danger if they are willing to ignore facts.

 

I see posts where some try to make a comparison between the Sub Logic and this package to just justify it, in their minds. I am wondering if they compare their cars when they get it now to the Model T?

It simply amazes me how far some would go to ignore reality and willing to prostitute themselves.

 

Factors like Xwind landings, Adverse yaw, Rate of turn, Ground effect, Glide rate, L-8, Performance numbers in different configurations, behavior during Spin Entry, Exit, Stalls, Maneuvering during slow speed, Forward and Side Wing Views.... in Normal category SEL acft. None of them are correct

 

Special high performance, Extra, control response, behavior during advanced maneuvers in unusual attitudes, even some of the basic aerobatic maneuvers like the Aileron Roll, the response to the controls is not even close. None of them are correct for the acft that I know.

 

And Yes, you can easily evaluate all these factors, in the sims, or Real Life, in under 3 hours.

 

What is good is that it stimulates some of the activity in some the sim sites and allows some dodo birds to post their opinions regardless if they are factual or not..

 

What is Not good is that some companies like LR now do not have to work any harder to improve their products since they already are eons ahead of it.

 

At best you can call / describe it, as a Psychedelic Scenery viewer, but this is an insult to the real World of Aviation and I cannot see any attributes in this software that would justify using it as a tool.

If your desire to gaze at scenery, sunsets, there are much better, and cheaper alternatives.

 

No, I have no desire to sit in the front of my screen and look at some weird looking colors, areas that I do not recognize from real life flying, every five minutes getting interrupted by some odd update message...

 

It does not affect me, personally, because I already know I am talking about, I am just trying to help others that may not know, and are willing to learn.

[Markg55]

Just uninstalled it.

Should have called Micro Soft Sight Stimulator.

Awesome Graphics no doubt

Installed fine. Had no issues. Ran well on my rig.

Aircraft?...... outside a few GA most are not ready for Prime Time IMHO.

No Helicopter or Classic Propliner.

I like to fly.

Would like to see a "Classic" skin developed for it. Not a fan of Tiles. Prefer a menu structure. But that is just me.

I will keep an eye out for further patches.

It will get better with time that I have no doubt.

Just my Two Cents....( before taxes )

[FrankR409]

So sorry! Bye!

[Kurtvw]

Those type of people do not concern me, the ones that do are Real World pilots that either do not know any better, and that will put them, and others around them, in a terrible danger if they are willing to ignore facts.

 

Factors like Xwind landings, Adverse yaw, Rate of turn, Ground effect, Glide rate, L-8, Performance numbers in different configurations, behavior during Spin Entry, Exit, Stalls, Maneuvering during slow speed, Forward and Side Wing Views.... in Normal category SEL acft. None of them are correct

 

Lets bring this out of the vague sweeping 'everything sucks' discussion and get specific.

 

Lets take the C172, as its a nice simple plane that we've (you keep implying but not really stating that you're a real world pilot, so I'll assume you are) all flown at some point in the real world.

 

Pops off the ground a little easy in FS, has in all previous versions... Has for sure an optimistic rate of climb that is not in line with any C172 I've ever met... Rudder is touchy, just like every flight sim I've ever been in, but can be dialed out with axis curves. And I am hearing there is a fuel consumption issue with it in the sim, thats acknowledged. We know the garmin is poorly modeled, so lets not get into that part of it, thats easily fixed and Asobo have stated explicitly that they are working on that currently.

 

But you glossed over a lot of very specific areas and provided no data to support your position.

 

I'm asking you to do that now. I want to know what exactly you're saying is wildly incorrect, in real verifiable terms, not opinions.

 

 

***Edit***

Your adverse yaw remark is of interest, I think what is really going on is the auto-rudder doesn't disable when toggled off. I think the adverse yaw is likely properly modeled, but auto-rudder is dealing with it. I have submitted a bug report on that already. It is however hardly a fatal flaw in a consumer level sim.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Kurtvw

[Kurtvw]

I did and the tank was full to the brim on take off! Been flying lean and not ragging the engine but it does seem to be gulping rather than sipping the (virtual) avgas!

 

I'm doing a test of this right now in the 172, level cruise 110 kts 2300 rpm and just rich of peak... I'm getting a gauge indication of 8GPH, which is pretty much exactly what I would expect. I put only 7 gallons in the plane, so I'm just going to let it run dry... I would expect it to last about 50ish minutes, we'll see how it does.

[Kurtvw]

Interesting result, it died with 1.5 gallons in each side, so 3 of the seven gallons unusable (realistic, honestly)... It took about 25 minutes to drink the other 4...

 

So it might be over consuming just a little, but it doesn't seem like its way out of whack..

 

I'm going to retest this now that I know that it's smart enough to handle unusable fuel. Will post again in a bit.

[Kapitan]

Good Test Kurt

Im testing the C152

It consumes 6.1 gallons per hour (at standard conditions) with a total 52 gallons

So how far it can go depends also on ground speed (tail/head wind)

[Markg55]

3 Knots at 235 degrees..........8>) in the USA

[Kurtvw]

Good Test Kurt

Im testing the C152

It consumes 6.1 gallons per hour (at standard conditions) with a total 52 gallons

So how far it can go depends also on ground speed (tail/head wind)

 

But have you tested that against actual burn rate?

 

I just finished a longer test in the 172, and it is burning about 10% more than I would expect and more than it reports on its fuel flow gauge...

 

The fuel flow gauge in these planes is NEVER trusted in real life anyhow, and is more of an approximation... But, here is what I got...

 

In the conditions I described above, 5k feet, 2300RPM, just rich of peak lean, I'm showing about 8gph which agrees with my real world experience (not an exact science, values vary by many factors as Kapitan points out)... 8GPH is on the high end of what I've seen, real world, but its not unreasonable.

 

Actual burn test over a timed period vs the actual capacity in the tank reported on the fuel screen not on the gauges shows that its in reality burning about 9gph...

 

So, its a little high, but not so much that it would cut someones range so badly that a good reserve wouldn't have compensated for.

 

C152 might have an issue, but the C172 seems plenty close enough to me. I'm not doing a second test in the 152, because I don't fly that plane normally and it's no value to me.

 

If anyone else wants to do it, all you need to do is set your plane up, climb to alt, open the fuel panel in the sim, set a precise value of fuel... go away for an hour and come back. Pretty easy. But it does take an hour.. Or half hour if you want to keep it simple, but fixed time vs fixed fuel values. Easy math.