cobalt

A current poll in another forum shows that 86% are satisfied with SU9 and 14% dissatisfied. In my own case, MSFS is running better than ever following this update, even with multiple addons installed. Alienware Aurora R11, 32 GB ram, Intel i7-10700F, GeForce RTX 2080 Super, Ultra graphics settings

Absolutely correct. And be aware that some critics of MSFS have never used the program, believe it or not.

Others have already answered several of these. As to your first two items, (1) there IS usable ATC (I use it on every flight; it may not be to your liking but it IS usable), and (2) there is LOTS of traffic (not sure what you mean by "usable" but it is there), and there are add-ons (some freeware) that enhance it. The fact that you expected to be able to import planes from older sims suggests that you are not well informed about the MSFS project. As to your last comment, there was a detailed description of the project prior to launch in which it was made clear that it was to extend for at least 10-years -- sorry you missed it. Is it unreasonable that it a 10-year project would still be "far from complete" 20 months after launch? Regarding videos: I have had the opportunity to fly over several of the areas shown in the Microsoft-Asobo videos, and generally speaking I see very little difference from what was "advertised". The recent Iberia update, for example, is as spectacular as the video. If you don't like MSFS, don't use it. But uninformed griping about unmet expectations at this stage, given the revolutionary advance that MSFS represents, is unwarranted.

deleted

I respectfully disagree on both points. In my opinion MSFS in its current state has not only met, but well surpassed, expectations. It is by far the most advanced flight sim ever produced, and it is getting better all the time. With its real-world scenery, nothing else comes remotely close to the sense of immersion this affords. What exactly are the expectations you had that are unmet? Please be precise -- saying "MSFS is garbage", "the weather stinks", etc. is not helpful. On your second point, if you are actually spending more time installing updates than flying, this is not normal. I have had occasional glitches with getting some updates installed, but nowhere near the level you describe. As far as multiple add-ons requiring updating after MSFS updates, this too is not normal in my experience. I have hundreds of add-ons, and few if any have been affected by the updates, other than the fact that MSFS scenery updates can render some add-ons obsolete. (Using Addon Linker, which places only links rather than actual files, in the Community folder, is a big help). I have spent hours and hours flying and exploring the world as I never could in any earlier sim, and it is amazing.

Are you setting the altitude for each wind speed? (E.g., changing the ground level wind speed alone will not affect wind at higher altitudes.) Personally, as far as I can tell the wind speed menu works fine.

To accelerate time, press R [num] + Repeat to get 2X, 4X, 8X, etc. For deceleration press R [num] -.

Do they really? I don't.

I must confess to some bewilderment with the folks who keep warning us that MSFS might not last; that we should be wary of our "investments" (see another current thread); and other potential dangers and horrors that might befall us naive souls who have purchased MSFS. For Pete's sake, the Deluxe edition costs 120 bucks, less than it takes to fill your gas tank in many places! Here is a dose of reality: MSFS2020 is a revolutionary -- yes, revolutionary -- advance in flight simming that has afforded many people, including me, tremendous pleasure in the year and a half it has been with us. I have no reason whatever to doubt the 10-year commitment to this project which will expire in 2030. After that, who knows? In the meantime I am flying as I have never flown before, while the worry-warts sit around wringing their hands. I will wager that I am having more fun than they are.

Well, my "investment" so far is $120 for MSFS Deluxe edition and a few dollars more for add-ons (most of mine are freeware, of which there is an abundance of wonderful stuff). I can't think of a more satisfying 120 bucks to "invest" even if MSFS2020 goes kaput tomorrow (which is very unlikely as it is a blockbuster success from all the evidence I've seen). I delighted in FSX for 15 years, but not now that I've "seen Paris" (i.e. MSFS). It is a fantastic sim, regardless of how long it lasts, but I predict it is here to stay for a long, long time. Just my opinion.

You said earlier, quote, "I thought it was going to be usable off-line as well." Pardon my misunderstanding, but it is hard to see how someone familiar with MSFS could think this. As for it being "temporary", it is no more so than FSX, P3D, FS9, MS98, or any other sim. What makes you think that FSX and P3D will escape the obsolescence you are predicting? By 2030, with no further development, they are likely to be be but a distant memory!

You clearly have missed the whole concept underlying MSFS, which is streaming of satellite data for the area being flown over, which is the only way the earth can be depicted in this level of detail. No personal computer would ever be able to accommodate the vast data base required. So yes, of course, you must be connected to the internet -- this is the whole idea! As for the future, MSFS is at least a 10-year project.

Agreed. The "arcade game" comparison is absurd (and ironic since MSFS is about as far as you can get from an arcade-style game). He is either joking or is confusing MSFS 2020 with MS98!

You are serious, he isn't. You actually use MSFS; he has never tried it. Nobody has been pushed out, but some disqualify themselves by their lack of respect for others and for this forum.

Brodie, thanks for your further discussion of your dissatisfaction with MSFS. I fully respect your opinion, but I am baffled by several of your statements about this sim that are so completely at variance with my own experience with it. To me (and I gather to many others), MSFS with its real-world satellite-based imagery is a revolutionary advance that is years beyond FSX, P3D, and other sims that rely on landclass-based artificial scenery in which cities and towns (except for a few hand-crafted ones) bear little resemblance to the actual places. Moreover, I find that this is generally true world-wide, especially after all the scenery updates. I don't see the variance in quality with location that you apparently do. This scenery, plus amazing real-weather effects and other features, make MSFS a totally different experience for me, compared to FSX and FS9 -- much more immersive. I could never go back. Regardless, whatever sim you use to do it, happy flying!

Enlighten me -- What in this thread do you find unreasonable? Just asking.

You haven't given us any details about your system or setup, such as your computer processor, video card, internet connection, etc., or how much effort you have put in to get MSFS working properly (and this can take some time). I say this because your description of it is so far from my experience that I wonder if we are talking about the same sim. Like many others, I was a great fan of FS9 and FSX, but MSFS is so far advanced beyond them in giving a feeling of real-world immersion that it's not close -- and that includes not just scenery but weather and other things. Note that this is an inquiry, not a criticism. I have seen other posts similar to yours in which the OP eventually changed his mind on MSFS after sticking with it. But, as has been said, it's not for everybody.

Let me expand a bit on what Tim said. Like many others, I was thrilled to be able to fly over my own house and neighborhood in MSFS when it first came out, but I came to realize that it is much more than that. The astounding fact about MSFS is that anywhere in the world I choose to fly, the buildings, towns, farms, roads, dams, and other structures I see are all real -- even isolated mountain shacks. This means that MSFS can be used to explore the real world, taking me to places I have never been to and never will, with assurance that what I see in MSFS is close to what I would see if I actually traveled there. At present it is the only flightsim program that can do this. None other comes remotely close. If this doesn't qualify as a revolutionary advance, I don't know what does. "Eye-candy", my foot!

Our experiences with the offline scenery are different. I will admit that mine has been very limited, because the internet is rarely down for a protracted period so I have had little need for it. But the offline scenery I have seen, once I am outside the cached area, is pretty primitive -- I would say definitely inferior to FSX. For me, offline is a last resort, but to each his (or her) own.

But be aware that the off-line scenery is vastly inferior to the normal (online) scenery. It is like going back 10 years or more -- maybe better than nothing, but not very enjoyable.

Yes, plainsman is right, the World updates are not mandatory -- I stand corrected. But they do require two steps to install. As for the Sagrada Familia, the actual building is still not complete, as stated below. I suspect that the current (updated) version in MSFS reflects this.

Just be clear, the World Scenery updates involve two steps: downloading the mandatory update, and then going into Content Manager to install the new scenery. This is not intuitive and causes confusion with every update -- I have at times forgotten step 2 and wondered why I didn't see any change in the scenery!

If you use Add-on Linker and store all your add-ons outside of the MSFS folder (preferably on on a different drive), your add-ons will occupy zero space in MSFS. (For those who don't know, Add-on Linker places only links, not actual files, in Community). Also, it may be useful to know that the mandatory updates to MSFS typically add very little in terms of disc space (a few GB), since most of the update files replace old ones.

There is a simple solution to this problem. Any flight in MSFS can be saved by hitting ESC and using the "save" function at the bottom of the screen and specifying a name for that flight. This preserves all information about the plane, position, weather, etc., and the flight can then be re-loaded at any time, even after MSFS is exited and re-started. There is one caveat: in a loaded (saved) flight, you cannot change the weather, including time of day, from the way it was when you saved it. The way I handle this is, prior to exiting the flight, I set the time of day and the weather as I want it to be when I re-load. I do this routinely and it works well (or as ballplayers would say, "it works good"). P.S. You can also accelerate time in MSFS by hitting R(Num+) and decrease it by hitting R(Num-). This allows acceleration of time by 2X, 4X, etc. (not sure what the limit is).

I am one of those -- I think we are a sizeable group -- who for several months have seen a major drop in performance (stuttering) everywhere when photogrammetry is on, but have great performance when it is off. Asobo is aware of the problem, but so far it persists through the most recent update. I will say, though, that I don't really miss photogrammetry all that much, mainly because at or near the ground it looks terrible (admittedly, from altitude the PG cities look great).