FS 2020 is a Hot Mess

I don't believe what you are saying!!!! This thing has so many problems that those that were in FSX's start are trivial......you sure don't help with this .

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.

 

Interesting results Kurt. The 172 sounds like it might have less of an issue than the 152, so probably the go to choice for GA at present.

 

As regards stunning scenery, can't see an issue with that - I set up a little flight following one of the main railway routes in NSW Australia and blown away. The only slight gripe is that we should have a hotkey to turn off the HUD, rather than doing it at menu level.

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...

 

You can adjust the Fuel_Flow_Scalar figure in the engine.cfg using Notepad (for the 172 G1000 only, the Classic doesn't have an engine.cfg file). The scalar figure is a percentage, 1.0 is 100% for example. If you change 1.0 to 0.9 you've reduced the fuel flow by 10%. Once saved, this edit won't be overwritten back to default when you re-launch the sim.

The engine.cfg can be found in:

C:\Users\\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\Packages\Official\OneStore\asobo-aircraft-c172sp-as1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_C172sp_AS1000

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 but they need more of a menu driven game like FSX.

One thing is for certain though, Microsoft Flight Simulator has managed to capture the attention of a brand new audience (very much needed). For the hobby as a whole, this will benefit all of us (whatever sim you happen to use) for quite some time.

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.

 

Kurt

forget my previous post. I had seen a C152 manual online but is different from the sim

In the sim the C152 has 14 gallons in each tank

I set it to 2 gallons each

Took off from KMIA heading 300 climbing at 75kts to 5000ft then maintained 95kts with mixture 40%

Engine died 15 minutes later at about 35 miles. There was still one gallon in each tank.

 

So it actually consumed 2 gallons total for a 15 minute flight including take-off and 35 miles range at clear conditions

 

I included the take-off because you must take off in any flight to go somewhere, its part of the range

 

So with full tank I guess I could fly for 3 hours and 15 minutes and could possibly go 455 miles

 

which is perfectly consistent with REAL life

Edited September 6, 2020 by Kapitan

when I got it I returned it, but got it again. That is because I got SPADNext working with it and that got most of my Siatek working. The only thing that does not work is any actions that are related to SimConnect, but I suspect that is coming. I think they should have released it with SimConnect. The scenery and realism seem well done. I have the B350i working well and I programmed the controls how I wanted them, via SPADNext and the new interface. I would like to see the cockpit hidden one day because I have a external one. Interesting enough the Orbx True Earth I used in P3D looks very close to the same once the aircraft is higher, but the MSFS looks more real, more so at Lower altitudes.

I will likely switch to it, I use the Flight1Tech G750 on a second PC so I will look forward when it supported.

Kurt

forget my previous post. I had seen a C152 manual online but is different from the sim

In the sim the C152 has 14 gallons in each tank

I set it to 2 gallons each

Took off from KMIA heading 300 climbing at 75kts to 5000ft then maintained 95kts with mixture 40%

Engine died 15 minutes later at about 35 miles. There was still one gallon in each tank.

 

So it actually consumed 2 gallons total for a 15 minute flight including take-off and 35 miles range at clear conditions

 

I included the take-off because you must take off in any flight to go somewhere, its part of the range

 

So with full tank I guess I could fly for 3 hours and 15 minutes and could possibly go 455 miles

 

which is perfectly consistent with REAL life

 

Yeah, you can't include climbout at the cruise burn rate, its much higher. To test cruise burn you need to use fixed numbers once you're established in cruise.

 

In a real world flight, you can kind of average it because the excess you spend in climb will partially pay back during cruise descent... But most folks trying to quick and dirty up a 'guesstimate' in sim aren't going to do that.

 

Glad to help.

My feeling on this is...

 

1. Windows 10 won’t accept FS9 discs, or I’d gladly still run it.

 

2. FSX-Steam still gives UIAutomationCore.dll crashes, or I’d gladly run it.

 

3. I have P3D, but it’s v.2.5, it was laggy on my old Windows 7 computer, and I’ll be darned if I want to spend more money each time there’s a new update.

 

4. X-Plane 11 Trial runs great on my new computer, but the roads below look as square and patterned as a picnic table cloth— stock default. And I WILL NOT spend a penny on ortho scenery, just to make it look good.

 

Final Decision: It’s MSFS 2020, or I simply give up on flight sim.

 

I say be grateful we have another choice.

My feeling on this is...

 

1. Windows 10 won’t accept FS9 discs, or I’d gladly still run it.

 

 

I say be grateful we have another choice.

 

?? It works very well in Windows 10.

?? It works very well in Windows 10.

 

Windows 10, 2004 is required... Something else to mess with, needlessly. Although I admit I did it before installing!

Oh really? I was unaware. I was told Windows 10 security protocol rejects disc installs of programs.

The install is a bit tricky in Windows 10. First install FSX. Run the program, activate, and then fly a few minutes. THEN install Acceleration. If you install Acceleration too soon, the FSX install won't activate.

Oh really? I was unaware. I was told Windows 10 security protocol rejects disc installs of programs.

 

You can install all the flight sims you mentioned on Win 10. FS2002 I can confirm even works.

I'd have preferred just an eye candy update to FS9. So you could use the same aircraft, add-ons etc. Id the negativity here is true, what s shame....and a disgrace. I certainly seem to read a lot more negative than positive. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an FS9 flight to do with a flawless TDS 787 and two beautiful airports....at 60 FPS.

oh dear...and they keep coming to look at our garden!

 

and they are not even P3Dv5 or FSX simmers, they are FS9, obviously they have tech limitations that ties them to it.

Chaps, this is getting very very boring...

 

One more derogatory post and this thread gets closed (yes...another one).

 

Go and fly somewhere, enjoy what you have....anyone would think you get more pleasure from bitching about each other!

 

Dominic

Oops, forget I was here! lol

lets all bury our heads

Shameless old thread bump

Lockhart, TX to Kerr Ranch.

Climb away from Lockhart and cruise at 9,500 feet.

This isn't a C172, and the aircraft isn't falling from the sky??

Why do some of us manage to fly without problems???