• KerrSpectives - So What About The MSFS 2020 Scenery?

    KerrSpectives - So What About The MSFS 2020 Scenery?

    Introducing The Series

    By Kenneth J. Kerr

    KerrSpectives - What About MSFS Scenery?
    I don't often fly airliners, but had to try this A320 over the Scottish Highlands from Inverness (EGPE), to Aberdeen (EGPD).

    Hey there folks, it's Kenneth J. Kerr here, and I'm back on FlightSim.Com with a brand new series of views, reviews, and sometimes opinionated rants concerning the world of flight simulation.

    So what happened to the old series (On An Older System)? Well, through the generosity of another reviewer (I won't mention his name, but he knows who he is), I acquired a much younger system after he upgraded to a brand new one and "handed down" his older one to me. Bottom line, my old system was retired, and with it the concept of the original series, and the articles that were still in the works.

    So, here I am with a newer computer, a whole new idea for articles, and along comes Microsoft with the earlier-than-expected release of MSFS 2020. No question, it's time to put pen to paper again, and get writing!

    What is this new series? I've coined a new word for it. "KerrSpectives" is short for Kenneth J. Kerr's perspectives on flight sim, although I might just extend the term to encompass other aspects of my writing too.

    Let's set some ground rules. What is a perspective? A perspective is essentially a person's view of something. So, if you have a perspective on some aspect of life, you've got to appreciate that it might be highly subjective, intensely personal, woefully inaccurate, and open to change as time goes on.

    The implications for my flight simming KerrSpectives are this. You might not agree with me, I might not always be correct, and I might even change my mind as my experience grows. As Wayne Dyer said, "Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change." In other words, if you disagree with me it's OK, I might end up disagreeing with myself as time goes on!

    And with that said: Let's get to the very first article in the series. Let's talk about my KerrSpective on the MSFS 2020 scenery. By the way, I run the sim in 1920 x 1080 resolution, so the screenshots reflect that. 4K would be better.

    It's A Whole New World

    KerrSpectives - What About MSFS Scenery?
    Flying the Katana over a small town on the Canadian prairie. Yes, this is where I live, population around 500 and more than
    200km to anywhere over 100,000 population.

    There's no question about it, Microsoft has re-written the rule book with this one, and in MSFS 2020 have given us a whole new world in which to fly. Just think about it, the whole world in photo imagery (also known as "ortho"). This would have been unimaginable just a year or so back, and if you've been around the MSFS franchise for 32 years like me, it's a long way from the solid blue sky and single-toned green land that we once knew!

    First impressions are of course mind blowing. The wow factor is off the charts. The subtle lighting, the amazing weather engine, these are jaw dropping. And when you combine them with that stunning scenery, it's everything that many of us have hoped for--for decades!

    However, those are the first impressions, and sometimes the second and third impressions can muddy the waters. It's like buying a car that you see in a showroom, you can see no wrong in it, but when you look at it in the light of day a few days later, you begin to see the scratches. And so it is with the scenery in MSFS 2020. It is stunning, it is brilliant, it is awe inspiring... BUT it is flawed, incomplete, and at times disappointing.

    Not everyone will see this of course. Once again it is a matter of perspective. If you only fly airliners at 33,000 feet, you might have a very different view of the scenery (both literally and in terms of impression) from someone who putters around the sky at 1000 feet above the ground in an ultralight. You might also have a different perspective if you only fly in areas that you don't know, compared with flying over parts of the world that you know like the back of your hand.

    In my case, I usually fly General Aviation, often below 5000 feet AGL, and mostly over areas that I have some real-life flight experience with. My expectations then are very high, and therein lies a problem. Great expectations can lead to disappointment, and this is compounded by the fact that for a year Microsoft hyped this product up like we would never again need another scenery addon. Rightly or wrongly, I expected error-free perfection, or at least darn close to it.

    So did we get that? In a word, no. Is it great, oh yes. Is it beautiful, no question. Is it perfect? Sadly it is not.


    47 Comments
    1. owend's Avatar
      owend -
      Thanks for sharing your thoughts and observations on the new sim. I have delayed my purchase due to the fact that I like P3dv4.5 and the way it runs on my current hardware. I know that when I eventually do go the MSFS, I will need a change in hardware to really enjoy the experience with the new sim. Also, there are bugs as there always are with new simulations when they first appear. That is just the nature of the beast so to speak. Anway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
    1. KennethKerr's Avatar
      KennethKerr -
      Quote Originally Posted by owend View Post
      Thanks for sharing your thoughts and observations on the new sim. I have delayed my purchase due to the fact that I like P3dv4.5 and the way it runs on my current hardware. I know that when I eventually do go the MSFS, I will need a change in hardware to really enjoy the experience with the new sim. Also, there are bugs as there always are with new simulations when they first appear. That is just the nature of the beast so to speak. Anway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
      I appreciate your feedback. I still prefer the p3d4.5 UK interpretation thanks to ORBX TE GB, and ORBX Global underneath it. Also still love my A2A Cessna 172, and my JustFlight Chipmunk. These will keep me using P3D4.5 for a while.

      However, MSFS 2020 actually runs better on my computer than P3d4.5. It is smoother, and the FPS is higher and more consistent at higher details than I use in P3d. I think it must be the way the programs allocate computer resources, but I am not a techie. This really did surprise me though.

      I now have pushing towards 70 hrs in the new sim, and I do love it (apart from the niggles mentioned in the article). There are other issues too, and those will appear in a future article. The one thing I keep reminding myself is this. What I have with P3d represents more than ten years of development into the old FSX-legacy ecosystem, and all my addons too. The new sim is brand new vanilla, and it can only get even better as time goes on.

      I have no regrets buying the new sim, but also no regrets keeping P3d on my system too!

      - Kenneth
    1. DavidN16's Avatar
      DavidN16 -
      Wow, thank you for your frankness on FSMS2020. You have reported here what I could see by watching less than ten YouTube videos. I knew that the autogen scenery was no better than P3D and after you flew out of the eye candy area, you were not seeing anything like the real world. You did confirm that you need to be at least 2000 feet above ground level for the photo real to look good.

      So, FSMS2020 in short is no better than what you can download for free using the FSEarth Tiles program ( I just came across 3 months ago). With it you can download any part of the world (Bing or Google tiles) and fly over REAL world scenery and (yes) you have to be up 2000 feet for it to look great. I simply take off with the Photo Real scenery OFF and pause the sim once I get to 2500 feet and turn on the Photo Real. I do just the opposite when landing and get the best of both worlds. Downloading is quick and easy and I mean get a full Midwest size state in 4 hours (while you are sleeping). When you get tired of that state delete it and get another state. Another example is you can plan you flight path and download just that section of the earth (which takes even LESS time.) Everyone wants to fly over there OWN house and their neighborhood and with this free little program ... you can and in as high of detail as possible.

      Someone should really compare FSMS2020 to what you can really do with the addons the flight sim community already has at our disposal for free.

      My 3 cents (inflation).
    1. KennethKerr's Avatar
      KennethKerr -
      Quote Originally Posted by DavidN16 View Post
      Wow, thank you for your frankness on FSMS2020. You have reported here what I could see by watching less than ten YouTube videos. I knew that the autogen scenery was no better than P3D and after you flew out of the eye candy area, you were not seeing anything like the real world. You did confirm that you need to be at least 2000 feet above ground level for the photo real to look good.

      So, FSMS2020 in short is no better than what you can download for free using the FSEarth Tiles program ( I just came across 3 months ago). With it you can download any part of the world (Bing or Google tiles) and fly over REAL world scenery and (yes) you have to be up 2000 feet for it to look great. I simply take off with the Photo Real scenery OFF and pause the sim once I get to 2500 feet and turn on the Photo Real. I do just the opposite when landing and get the best of both worlds. Downloading is quick and easy and I mean get a full Midwest size state in 4 hours (while you are sleeping). When you get tired of that state delete it and get another state. Another example is you can plan you flight path and download just that section of the earth (which takes even LESS time.) Everyone wants to fly over there OWN house and their neighborhood and with this free little program ... you can and in as high of detail as possible.

      Someone should really compare FSMS2020 to what you can really do with the addons the flight sim community already has at our disposal for free.

      My 3 cents (inflation).
      Hello, and thank you for responding, however I feel you have misunderstood some of what I was saying. Please allow me to clarify by referring to your reply.

      1. "I knew that the autogen scenery was no better than P3D and after you flew out of the eye candy area, you were not seeing anything like the real world."

      Autogen in P3d means autogen ground tiles, autogen buildings, autogen trees, etc. In stock P3d there is no photo scenery, hence the need to use third party tools like FSEarthTiles. However, in MSFS 2020, most of the world has photoscenery out of the box. Anywhere that Bing has photo tiles, MSFS 2020 uses them. However, on top of those photo tiles, it places buildings and trees in two ways. Either photogrammetry, which uses Bing's 3d building scans when available, or by autogen, meaning an AI interprets buildings, etc, and lays them on top of the photoscenery. If by eye candy you mean the 300+ photogrammetry cities, then when you fly out of them you are still flying over photoscenery mostly, but with AI buildings on top. Therefore, you do have massive amounts of the world looking like the real world in terms of the photo images, but just not with buildings that are 100% accurate. In short, autogen in P3d and autogen in MSFS 2020 are not the same. Autogen in P3d means everything is autogen. Autogen in MSFS 2020 means in non-photogrammetry areas the buildings are autogen, but mostly in top of real photo scenery. There are areas where ground tiles are artificial as I mentioned, but so far these are the minority or sporadic (annoying when it is an area you know well!).


      2. "You did confirm that you need to be at least 2000 feet above ground level for the photo real to look good."

      No, that is not what I was saying. I meant that above 2,000 the 3d buildings in the photogrammetry cities look better than they do at low level. Generally speaking, the photo real tiles look great down to final approach. Imagine using FSEarthTiles at the very highest resolution possible, that's what we've got globally with MSFS 2020 out of the box.


      3. "So, FSMS2020 in short is no better than what you can download for free using the FSEarth Tiles program ( I just came across 3 months ago)." and "Someone should really compare FSMS2020 to what you can really do with the addons the flight sim community already has at our disposal for free"

      I have been familiar with FSEarthTiles for many years, and yes I used it for a while when creating scenery for Aerofly FS2. I am therefore qualified to give comparisons based on both using FSEarthTiles, and using MSFS 2020. First, as I have stated, MSFS 2020 is accessing the highest level of detail. You would not download an entire state in that detail in four hours, and you would likely not have a drive big enough to hold it. That's why MSFS 2020 streams the data as you need it, without you having to load it on your drive. Second, your process is tiresome, having to constantly turn photoscenery on and off according to your altitude, and then erase old states and begin again with new. That's a lot of work and might get old after a while. Thirdly, with FSEarthTiles you are not going to have buildings, trees, etc on top of the photos because P3d uses a different process to create them. In MSFS 2020, you do have the buildings, trees, etc. Fourth, with FSEarthTiles, you would have to edit out the clouds by hand. MSFS 2020 already does that, and although not perfect (that was one of my gripes) at least it is more than you have with the free tools. Fifth, I would caution that there is a legal grey area in using FSEarthTiles. While there was some ambiguity with Bing, there was no such ambiguity with Google, which is why I never touched Google with a ten foot bargepole. There's no way, given all of the above, that I would ever go back to using FSEarthTiles now that MSFS 2020 already streams it all as you need it, in high quality, edited, and legally.

      Besides all that.... The MSFS 2020 experience is a massive leap over the previous sims. The lighting, the weather, the interface, the performance, it's just night and day in my opinion, and in my experience.

      In my article, I was drawing attention to aspects of the scenery that still need attention. However, using stock P3d with FSEarthTiles, and using stock MSFS 2020 is like comparing a push bike to a Ferrari.

      Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. The new sim is brilliant, but the execution of some aspects of the scenery urgently needs to be re-worked. But I would not go back to the old home-made route.

      - Kenneth
    1. glider66's Avatar
      glider66 -
      You've hit the nail on the head with "expectations"......

      FS2020 appears to have attracted a great many newcomers to Flight Sims who have become used to extremely high quality 3D games.

      Forums and social media have become swamped in derogatory feedback where users expected to fly over their houses at 500ft and see them accurately modelled in 3d, anywhere in the World.

      Couple that with the problem that many users criticize handling and flight characteristics whilst still on the default "game" level settings, and the feedback looks dire.

      ..and then to top it off, the Internet is now flooded with Trolls who all like to outdo each other with offensive and ignorant comments.

      Meanwhile, anyone has been seriously flight simming for a number of years can appreciate what a big breakthrough FS2020 is. Sure, it's got bugs, it can be awkward to install, and it does crash occasionally. Many of us however, will be really grateful that the Grand-Daddy of flight sims is back in the frame, even under delegated authorship.

      Up to its official release, I'd been using XP11.5 in VR and via triple monitors, with extensive Ortho4xp VR scenery and I'm still extremely appreciative of Austin's brainchild now that it has evolved into such a comprehensive and solid simulation, when coupled with good control hardware.

      I now find I'm using XP and FS2020 50/50, because they each have something to offer me, and I guess that will be the case for the foreseeable future, thank God for competition.

      XP with Ortho4xp gives me very accurate (and free) VFR that's very realistic above 1000ft, and FS2020 gives me much better 3D immersion below that height, even if the pay off is that my local village church gets auto-gened into a three storey block of flats....
    1. arypinsk's Avatar
      arypinsk -
      A lot of the complaints seem to be that MSFS2020 doesn't match reality. However, that is too high a bar: MSFT fundamentally need scenery that looks realistic. If you think about it for a moment, it is unreasonable to expect that the entire planet would be mapped with high resolution photo-imagery, ultra high resolution digital elevation models and sufficient information to model and texture more than a fraction of the world's buildings. MSFS is largely piggy-backing on datasets collected for other purposes, and, mostly by other organizations. Some of this information is current, some of it is considerably older. Each dataset has its artifacts and idiosyncracies. The cost of cleaning up a digital representation of the planet would be more than even MSFT could pay, and keeping it current (BTW) is a higher order of hopelessness. (This is a problem for autonomous vehicles, but I digress). For example, LIDAR point clouds pick up buildings and trees at exatraordinary resolutions, but the DEMS made from them don't resolve buildings into nice right rectangular parallelepipeds like the real thing. I was looking at a LIDAR point cloud for Buffalo, NY and was puzzled to find a huge dome adjacent to the city. Then I was realized that I was looking at a cloud of water droplets from Niagara Falls, which, BTW, obscured the falls. Then there are tidal flats, which look like water or land, depending on the time of day. I am guessing that if you live on the Bay of Fundy, you won't admire the representation in a flight simulator. Data north or south of 60o has historically been poor. Autogen based on image recognition is a clever idea, but it won't reproduce reality for someone who knows the area. If MSFT keeps working on it, it may improve with time....
    1. Roger Wensley's Avatar
      Roger Wensley -
      The scenery is, for sure, impressive overall. But, expecting that standard everywhere results in disappointment when it fails. The largest failure of all, of course, is the guesswork building on the local airstrip, which is so far from compatible with the standard of the overall scenery when viewed from above 1,000 feet that it requires no further comment. Even getting the simulator to function at all with the joystick and pedals you already own can prove difficult, and according to the on-line posts it can be impossible. I cannot help feeling that this simulator is in fact unfinished and will require a lot more input before it finally loads without problems, functions correctly, and provides all-round satisfaction.
    1. Don T.'s Avatar
      Don T. -
      Hi.

      Excellent review. I'm also a RW pilot living in Niagara Falls NY and thoroughly enjoy sightseeing flights over Western NY and Southern Ontario. I have excellent scenery addons in FSX for the area and would like to see what the new sim has to offer. Could you please post photos of Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Toronto? I would be most appreciative.

      Cheers
    1. dw1's Avatar
      dw1 -
      Thank you VERY much for your detailed review.

      Yes, the pre-release hype raised expectations to an unrealistic level. While MSFS 2020 is a great step forward (and I am thrilled to see a new version), it is not without its faults.

      There is a YouTube video of an MSFS NYC fly-over and while the buildings look great, there was WAY too much green in the streets, the bridges looked as you described them (pretty bad) and the traffic driving above the 59th street bridge made it look like MiB was doing some type of flying car testing.

      Like prior versions of MSFS (I've been flying this sim since version 5.0) I look forward to patches and add-ins fixing many of these issues.
    1. btwallis's Avatar
      btwallis -
      Folks above have provided some good comments.
      Personally I want to thank you for your candid views. The pros and cons. I have found there are too many over the top reviews on each side of the fence Pro and Con. I like yours nicely balanced.
    1. maddog80's Avatar
      maddog80 -
      Thanks Kerr for your perpective. I am glad to hear various perpectives on this product. I have so much money invested in FSX, I really can't justify switching up to FS2020. I may wait awhile until we get the full gamut of products to support the new version of FS.
    1. dw1's Avatar
      dw1 -
      Quote Originally Posted by dw1 View Post
      Thank you VERY much for your detailed review.

      Yes, the pre-release hype raised expectations to an unrealistic level. While MSFS 2020 is a great step forward (and I am thrilled to see a new version), it is not without its faults.

      There is a YouTube video of an MSFS NYC fly-over and while the buildings look great, there was WAY too much green in the streets, the bridges looked as you described them (pretty bad) and the traffic driving above the 59th street bridge made it look like MiB was doing some type of flying car testing.

      Like prior versions of MSFS (I've been flying this sim since version 5.0) I look forward to patches and add-ins fixing many of these issues.
      Correction: my earliest version is FS4 (1989) - I just found the manual. So I'm been at this a while and seen many improvements. Hopefully MSFS 2020 does well enough that continued investments will be made.
    1. aslsw's Avatar
      aslsw -
      Thanks for your balanced views.

      My personal view is that they've done an amazing job - the imperfections tend to distract from how good the base is. For example, I live in a terrace unit in a curved block that follows water frontage - MSFS hasn't been able to match the curve, so instead its rectangular complex on the inside angle of the curve. Does that matter? Not really, because I'm willing to trade that minor inaccuracy for the overall product.

      Where they have got it right is the colours. Having spent a large part of my life living and working in Europe, Africa and Asia, every time I return to Australia it's the unique colours of the landscape that tell me I'm home. And where I live (high, dry) the sunset are beautiful. All of these colours are perfect in MSFS.

      One thing we as simmers need to avoid is arrogance towards gamers. My son is a gamer, but got hooked on the pre-release videos. So I bought him a copy and he's been excitedly texting me, asking for flying tips, going through the lessons etc. He's a 30 year old with aspergers, so anything that gets him in to aviation is a bonus.
    1. neilfb's Avatar
      neilfb -
      You are quite right Kenneth, 2020 is an unbelievable leap forward. I loved X Plane but have not returned since trying to master this beast.
    1. croudson's Avatar
      croudson -
      It is always great to get another informed perspective on MSFS. You made the following comments -"Let's set some ground rules. What is a perspective? A perspective is essentially a person's view of something. So, if you have a perspective on some aspect of life, you've got to appreciate that it might be highly subjective, intensely personal, woefully inaccurate, and open to change as time goes on.

      I look forward to more of your perspectives but "woefully inaccurate"? As a journalist, you have a responsibility to get your facts straight. Your informed opinions are always welcome even if people disagree. Looking forward to more perspectives. Michael Croudson
    1. graaant's Avatar
      graaant -
      Have been very happy with P3D V4, as I was earlier with FSX, FS2004, etc. However, as with every one of the previous sims, before long I'd leave them behind, uninstall them.

      This time I was sure it'd be different and I'd keep P3D installed. After several hours with the new sim, a few days ago I started up P3D and went to an area and aircraft I've always found v. immersive and enjoyable. I was stunned by how flat and artificial it felt by comparison, almost wooden. I didn't last more than a few minutes with it, and can't see spending many more.

      Just another perspective ...
    1. KennethKerr's Avatar
      KennethKerr -
      Quote Originally Posted by glider66 View Post
      You've hit the nail on the head with "expectations"......

      FS2020 appears to have attracted a great many newcomers to Flight Sims who have become used to extremely high quality 3D games.

      Forums and social media have become swamped in derogatory feedback where users expected to fly over their houses at 500ft and see them accurately modelled in 3d, anywhere in the World.

      Couple that with the problem that many users criticize handling and flight characteristics whilst still on the default "game" level settings, and the feedback looks dire.

      ..and then to top it off, the Internet is now flooded with Trolls who all like to outdo each other with offensive and ignorant comments.

      Meanwhile, anyone has been seriously flight simming for a number of years can appreciate what a big breakthrough FS2020 is. Sure, it's got bugs, it can be awkward to install, and it does crash occasionally. Many of us however, will be really grateful that the Grand-Daddy of flight sims is back in the frame, even under delegated authorship.

      Up to its official release, I'd been using XP11.5 in VR and via triple monitors, with extensive Ortho4xp VR scenery and I'm still extremely appreciative of Austin's brainchild now that it has evolved into such a comprehensive and solid simulation, when coupled with good control hardware.

      I now find I'm using XP and FS2020 50/50, because they each have something to offer me, and I guess that will be the case for the foreseeable future, thank God for competition.

      XP with Ortho4xp gives me very accurate (and free) VFR that's very realistic above 1000ft, and FS2020 gives me much better 3D immersion below that height, even if the pay off is that my local village church gets auto-gened into a three storey block of flats....

      No question, the program has attracted a whole new audience. you can see that on multiplayer where you want to fly according to procedure, only to find yourself facing down another aircraft landing in the wrong direction. Some of the player names are interesting too! I suspect sites like Flightsim.com will continue to be the hangout of the more serious flightsimmers.

      Of course, there is a balance between expectation and reality. I also expected more, but that is where I firmly lay the responsibility for that at the feet of the development videos over the past year. And yes, I would like to see churches in the UK looking like churches, etc. But this is still a mind blowing visual advance in the genre, and I am firmly hooked. I hope ORBX adds their customization to bring us what we want.

      I never did get into Xplane, but imagine if Austin teamed up with Google to do with that platform what MS did with Bing. That would get my attention for sure.

      - Kenneth
    1. KennethKerr's Avatar
      KennethKerr -
      Quote Originally Posted by arypinsk View Post
      A lot of the complaints seem to be that MSFS2020 doesn't match reality. However, that is too high a bar: MSFT fundamentally need scenery that looks realistic. If you think about it for a moment, it is unreasonable to expect that the entire planet would be mapped with high resolution photo-imagery, ultra high resolution digital elevation models and sufficient information to model and texture more than a fraction of the world's buildings. MSFS is largely piggy-backing on datasets collected for other purposes, and, mostly by other organizations. Some of this information is current, some of it is considerably older. Each dataset has its artifacts and idiosyncracies. The cost of cleaning up a digital representation of the planet would be more than even MSFT could pay, and keeping it current (BTW) is a higher order of hopelessness. (This is a problem for autonomous vehicles, but I digress). For example, LIDAR point clouds pick up buildings and trees at exatraordinary resolutions, but the DEMS made from them don't resolve buildings into nice right rectangular parallelepipeds like the real thing. I was looking at a LIDAR point cloud for Buffalo, NY and was puzzled to find a huge dome adjacent to the city. Then I was realized that I was looking at a cloud of water droplets from Niagara Falls, which, BTW, obscured the falls. Then there are tidal flats, which look like water or land, depending on the time of day. I am guessing that if you live on the Bay of Fundy, you won't admire the representation in a flight simulator. Data north or south of 60o has historically been poor. Autogen based on image recognition is a clever idea, but it won't reproduce reality for someone who knows the area. If MSFT keeps working on it, it may improve with time....
      Thank you for sharing many good, well thought-out, and valid points. I am unfamiliar with the term "LIDAR point cloud" and would like to learn more, I shall google the term. Thank you for expanding my knowledge base.

      - Kenneth
    1. KennethKerr's Avatar
      KennethKerr -
      Quote Originally Posted by Roger Wensley View Post
      The scenery is, for sure, impressive overall. But, expecting that standard everywhere results in disappointment when it fails. The largest failure of all, of course, is the guesswork building on the local airstrip, which is so far from compatible with the standard of the overall scenery when viewed from above 1,000 feet that it requires no further comment. Even getting the simulator to function at all with the joystick and pedals you already own can prove difficult, and according to the on-line posts it can be impossible. I cannot help feeling that this simulator is in fact unfinished and will require a lot more input before it finally loads without problems, functions correctly, and provides all-round satisfaction.
      My guess is that someone will release a program that enables users to add more customized buildings and scenery elements to airports. We have seen that in earlier generations, and it would be a welcome utility to have with the new sim.

      I have also spent many hours messing with settings for my joystick and throttle quadrant. I even tried a second joystick, but find it very hard to get the smooth fluidity apparent in P3d with the same controls. I hope this will be addressed, either by Asobo, or perhaps FSUIPC.

      And yes, I still think this was a deliberate release of a beta. I was not part of the alpha or beta teams, but considering the beta period lasted a mere two weeks before release, I think am a beta tester now! We know they are still developing the program, and with one million sales already, Asobo should have a somewhat independent budget to play with beyond Microsoft, and we shall see incremental improvements.

      - Kenneth
    1. KennethKerr's Avatar
      KennethKerr -
      Quote Originally Posted by Don T. View Post
      Hi.

      Excellent review. I'm also a RW pilot living in Niagara Falls NY and thoroughly enjoy sightseeing flights over Western NY and Southern Ontario. I have excellent scenery addons in FSX for the area and would like to see what the new sim has to offer. Could you please post photos of Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Toronto? I would be most appreciative.

      Cheers
      Hi Don.

      I lived in the Greater Toronto area for a decade, and one of my cross country flights in real life was from CZBA (Burlington airpark) to CYXU (London) to CYSN (St Catharines), back to CZBA. I also got to fly over the falls in a Jetstream helicopter once. Have flown round Toronto many times, in Cessnas, Pipers, T-6 Harvards, and a Lockheed Electra. So, the entire area means a lot to me too.

      And that is why I have mixed feelings about the mess that is currently Niagara falls! I know someone is fixing it, but right now it as a disappointment, especially the shape and angle of the Canadian falls, plus the fact that the water is static instead of dynamic.

      I will post shots later, either here or on a screenshot site I used to have.

      - Kenneth
  • Recent Forum Activity

    LeonZitron

    set altimeter in hPa instead of inches

    Thread Starter: LeonZitron

    Hi reference air pressure is always given in inches, I want to have it in hPa instead. How do I change that? thanks

    Last Post By: LeonZitron Today, 10:42 AM Go to last post
    chicagorandy

    Say what you will about FS20 - I am VERY impressed

    Thread Starter: chicagorandy

    I took two flights this morning in my little C152X - One off a listed tiny grass strip airport in the middle of peaceful Amish Country in N/E Indiana...

    Last Post By: Kapitan Today, 10:28 AM Go to last post
    shb7

    Simulate fsx locked spot view in fs 2200

    Thread Starter: shb7

    Does anybody know how to simulate the fsx locked spot external view in fs2200? I always used that? Steve I've been a member for 10 years and I'm ...

    Last Post By: gtox Today, 10:11 AM Go to last post
    Kapitan

    Is Flightsim.com against MSFS ? Nope!

    Thread Starter: Kapitan

    Hi am I mistaken to think that flightsim.com and other sites are sort of tolerant or happy with trollers campaigning against MSFS? Remember if we...

    Last Post By: Kapitan Today, 10:04 AM Go to last post