billythebassman

You may have read recently that MSFS celebrated ten million copies used. Assuming only a quarter of them paid full price, that is one hundred and fifty million dollars in sales. For this kind of money, I think we could expect more.

I guess it just seems to me that one type of sim could emphasize aerodynamics and the other could prioritize complex avionics systems. Much of the instability and "update chasing" that we are seeing today arises when one causes issues with the other. I think that many would agree that they spend far more time troubleshooting than actually flying because sims have reached the point where no one is capable of pleasing both camps and the results can often look a lot like chaos.

I have always felt that it would be a good idea to have two flight simulation programs; one for jet airliners which many people enjoy and one for GA. There is a world of difference between flying a plane and programming a plane to fly itself. The efforts to combine both in one sim have, IMHO, been the source of unnecessary complexity and instability in the flight sim experience. What are the common factors between, for example, landing a Bonanza in a crosswind and a thousand mile trip in a 737. Wouldn't dividing these simulated activities into separate programs contribute to more optimization in both ...and a tighter more reliable code?

Got it. Thanks for the prompt reply.

Why are there shots from so many other sims in the "MSFS Screen Shot Forum"? I keep coming here to see a shot from MSFS only to find screenshots from FSX FS2004 etc. Shouldn't they have a separate forum just for the sake of clarity?

@ Cobalt who asked "What exactly are the expectations you had that are unmet? Please be precise -- " My reply would be: That there would be usable ATC That there would be usable Traffic That older planes from FSX and P3d would be usable in the sim That users would be able to record and replay flights That the weather engine would be stable and reliable That it would look remotely similar to the videos used to hype it. There was, to my recollection, no mention that this would be far from complete almost two years after release and that it was in fact a "ten year project"

MSFS has a few strong points. But I think the greatest source of disappointment is the huge gap between what was hyped for years before release and what was actually delivered. Also the fact that with each update [sU] so many add-ons also need to be "updated." It has reached the point that much more time is spent on compulsory updating than on actual flying.

I'm afraid that pretty well sums up MSFS.

Glad you're good with it, brother. BTW it is a lifelong dream of mine to visit Yorkshire. The many films and videos made there reveal a most beautiful place!

Were we really told not to expect a finished product (i.e.one usable for more than 5 minutes without a CTD) until 10 years had passed? If so, I must have missed it. Nine more years of frustration, misrepresentations, broken add-ons, degradation of the one distinguishing thing that would have made this sim worth considering--graphics? Nine more years of: -graphics degradation being "sold" as "performance enhancements" - being advised to "disable this--turn this feature off", -Advice not to look left or right while flying I think this reinforces my original point: If we continue to say we are content with this process--that it's OK with us--we are sure to get nothing other than more of it. I sometimes feel as if I have bought a shiny new car with a promise that "the wheels will be available in a few years." Perhaps you have a point; I should have read the fine print.

I don't consider this question of standards to be "foot stamping." In fact, I think it has been the over-arching (and unacknowledged) subject of debate since the beginning. It is exactly the context in which these differences of opinion can be understood IMO. After each update we are simply told to lower our expectations yet again. Is this good for the community of users?

Of course, of course--the problem is with us the community of users--not with the company that has strung us along for a year before release to almost a year after release with promises to deliver something it knows it doesn't have---a usable sim. We have, in this "update" what we have always gotten-- a huge downgrade in graphics quality which is touted as a "performance enhancement" And please, I know that there are those for whom this is "good enough" or those that are sure it will be fixed one day (based on what evidence-certainly not history) There are even those who say "It is only one year after release how dare we expect it to function as a flight simulator." I would just point out to them that they have their standards and we have ours.

Any ideas on turning off both gauge and windows reflections at the same time?

Milton Shupe has been generously contributing top quality aircraft for many many years. My personal favorite has been the beautiful D18. He is a true hero of the community. Thanks again Milton!

1. v5 is still "in development" 2. V5 requires you to re-buy the sim. 3. Most importantly, unless you have more than 8Gb of VRAM, many issues have been reported. 4. As a result of #3, with V5 you are jumping into the latest "read and tweak" festival--V4.5 is for those who want to spend their time actually flying

This is exactly the reason to stick with v4.5--Stability. You know--flying rather than tweaking--then waiting --then tweaking again --then hoping this time they've finally got it right. V4.5 has been working reliably on my system for quite some time --and likely to remain so exactly because they are now leaving it alone.

With respect, I didn't rush to buy it. I bought it shortly after they said it was ready for release. Your statement makes very little sense to me. How are we to "check to see if it is what we want" without buying it first--or waiting for someone else to risk their money and let us know. As long as we're prepared to accept whatever is given us and make such paltry excuses for these companies out of a reluctance to admit that we have been taken--releases like this are all we can expect. Constantly asking the question: "What are you complaining about some day it will work.?" just doesn't seem like a valid response to me. This company mounted a yearlong misleading campaign for this product knowing they would create a great deal of impatience. Now, after they have cashed in on that campaign,--they (as well as some of us) are asking for-- patience? I guess I'm just hoping for something better.

I guess one way to determine if something is a scam or not depends on the difference between what is promised and what is delivered. My principle objection is not so much to the quality of the sim as such--as to the yearlong hyped up videos that told us we could expect something far different from what we have been given. They show a fundamental lack of respect to a community comprised of its principle customers. Advertising is so ubiquitous that we hardly notice it sometimes. Hype is bad enough when it just hijacks our time and intrudes on the spaces where we go to find non-commercial information. When it is purposely misleading it is far worse still. How much of our time (i.e. what part of our lives) has been spent in the past year in anticipation of the fulfillment of these promises? Then when they are shown to have been empty, there are those who would have us keep our complaints to ourselves. Is it possible that these companies weren't aware that they had very little to deliver as measured against the representations they were making. I really don't think so. Were they hoping that many of us would not notice--or care. If so, it seems to have been a well placed hope. I just think that we, as a community, should start demanding better and hold them to account. Perhaps the developers of the next "Ground-breaking Achievement" will notice that.

My thoughts exactly. As soon as one of his argumentative threads is closed, he starts another one. It's clear his hobby isn't flying ---it's posting.

I'm puzzled by the logic I've read over and over that says: "Of course it's not ready for release--No sim is ever ready for release--How can you be so naive as to expect a finished product?" This attitude is markedly detrimental to our community because it makes excuses for shoddy workmanship and tells the developers not to worry about users ever expecting better products--we're perfectly content if you just keep supplying us with better promises (e.g. the memory leaks in FSX) There appear to be two kinds of users: Those who like scenery and love this new sim, and those who like a good simulation of an airplane--who have concerns about how long it will be before we see one--particularly in the absence of a finished SDK.

I wonder if someone might answer a question for me: What is the purpose of announcing products that are in development months and even years before they are ready? This has happened literally hundreds of times with several announcements and "pre-announcements" being made every day. They are invariably followed by dozens of posts applauding the announcement as if it were, in itself, an accomplishment. It seems to me that the effect is to create expectations and raise anticipation to such a fever pitch that the developers then feel pressured to release many products long before they are ready. At that point the conversation shifts to what is wrong with the release and how to "work around it" until the recently announced patch is released that may (or may not) deliver what was promised. We don't have to look far for a recent example of this, but Microsoft is just an extreme case of a pattern that has been repeated over and over in this industry. How, for example, are we being promised solid new addons for MSFS when even their SDK is unfinished and-- without any firm date for its completion. This is the distinct impression I get from those sites where the developers talk among themselves about the problems they are facing. It is far different from the glowing reports they make as to what is coming in sites such as this that are read by end users. It sometimes seems to me that the only real effect of these "announcements" is the creation of thread after thread about what is hoped for in the future and predictions of how great it surely will be when (and far too often) if, it arrives. [There is, as another example, a product apparently still in development that was first announced three years ago---its website continues to this day to promise that release can be expected in the Summer of 2018] There are hundreds of excellent products that exist in the here and now--what exactly is the advantage--the payoff-- for living so far in a speculative future? I mean no offense to those who seem to enjoy these announcements and to engage in these hopeful predictions. I am merely trying to understand them. Perhaps, as we often say, I am missing something.

You're right of course. It isn't an "either/or" issue. What I'm suggesting is that it could be. It might benefit both preference groups if there were one simulation program devoted exclusively to, say, pre-1960 aircraft, systems, navigation and scenery and another for those who prefer the modern approach with large airliners with FMS features and sprawling modern airports. There are, as you know, thousands of pages in the forums for ALL simulators that complain of compatibility problems for this addon or that one. I wonder how many of these issues may be the result of trying to wedge one kind of flight simulation experience into a program that was designed to simulate an entirely different sort of aviation. Flying a 747 across the Atlantic in the present era has very little in common with ADF navigation and landing a D18 in a 20 knot crosswind. Neither has more intrinsic value than the other (although I admit to a strong preference for the latter) yet clearly a different set of skills (and interests) are required for either. I wonder how much code could be simplified resulting in better performance for both groups if there were no attempt to accommodate these two dissimilar types of flying in one program. Human progress has, to some extent been fostered by greater specialization. I wonder if the same principle may not apply to our hobby.

If MSFS turns out to be an exercise of watching a flat screen on another flat screen I don't think I'll be very interested. Have we lost sight of the idea of simulating *flight*? The idea that the young would never be interested in piston engines and analog gauges is a generalization that underestimates an entire generation. I would hate to think of that generation being led to believe that flying is about programming your onboard computer and then watching the results on yet another screen. Anyone who has flown or even been a passenger in a small and simple aircraft knows that flying is far more exciting than that.

I agree most strongly with those who prefer flying a computer simulation of an airplane rather than a computer simulation of a computer.