Why not?

I would not call 8.696% significant (nor 10% either). Every advancement has a few detractors. There are still a group of folks that think all of us that left FS98 for FS2000 are completely misguided buffoons, and to consider FS2002, FS2004, or FSX is completely ridiculous. These are the perpetually disgruntled. To move forward is scary, it has risk, it must be bad. Having concluded progress is bad, they search for every evidence to support their conclusion. Fortunately, the world moves on in spite of these objections. No one forced the FS98 group to leave it, just as no one will try to make you leave FS2004. FS2020 is not a threat! Just enjoy FS2004 and let every one else move on!

"People just don't know how to operate the aircraft..."

 

I can't believe I just read this. It seems to me the more you know about how to fly the aircraft the more you know just how poor many aspects of the default aircraft really are. Now granted, the only RL experience I have is in the 172 but I think that's enough to know "how to operate the aircraft".

Edited December 22, 2020 by W2DR
kant spel

OK, so you are a statistician as well as an expert in Flight Simulators, I humbly bow to your better knowledge and understanding, being a mere noggin with only more than 60 years interest in aviation and 25 years in flight simulation. I hope that you and the rest of your fans will forgive my ignorance.

However, I resent being called a detractor, or someone that just bad mouths the software for the sake of doing so. No one looked forward to this software more than I did, I expected to move on, I expected it to be what it said it was going to be. We were supposedly sold a flight simulator. Like previous versions, I expected a few bugs, but really, get real!

In FS004, FSX and XPlane (come to that even in FS98, and flightgear) one can fly around the world, city to city, airport to airport with planes that fly properly, with ATC that works, and with the add-ons fly with some very sophisticated aircraft.

And what have I to move on to? After three patches the aircraft don't fly properly (you said yourself that they have not got it right with airliners yet), the ATC is not even up to the standard of the old compiled adventures, (Think you said somewhere you don't use ATC, so fair enough, you would not know), and the CTD's are well documented on this forum. (You've never had this problem, sorry, on this one i don't believe you.) You can't have add-ons in the community folder, the developers say that this may cause problems, so there is very little chance of flying any decent add-on aircraft for a while yet. (Even if any of the major developers are brave enough to commit to it)

So, in effect we are left with a souped-up Google Earth, sorry, Bing Maps with an attached very basic "flight simulator".

We have had three patches now, we have updated Japan Scenery, we have updated USA scenery, we are promised a UK updated scenery, yet we still have the same "Flight Simulator" problems. It's a no-brainer to work out where the priorities of the developer are.

It really really hurts me when you fanboys keep on telling those that have problems with this software that it is their own doing. It's because they don't know how to fly, their computer is not good enough, their controllers are not calibrated correctly, their internet connection is not good enough. This is all, on the most part rubbish. Not helped, of course, by the lack of any sort of manual unless you pay for a third party one.

Get real, get onboard, and let those that need to, know the problems. Stop being Ostriches , burying your heads in the sand. Stand up and be counted. Maybe then Microsoft will take note and take the necessary steps to make this software into something worthy of the Microsoft Flight Simulator name.

Yes, they may have sold two million copies. Let's see where we are in 12 months. I'll wager that unless there are radical improvements it will go the same way as Microsoft Flight and Dovetail's FSW. They sold well too, (Well FSW did, Flight relied on the add-ons), but were not up to the expected standard. Neither is this rubbish.

There was recently an article on this very site which suggested that this software was so bad that the plug should be pulled, and the project started again. The author made the argument that the codebase was so entangled in bugs that it would be impossible to fix them. As time goes on the more it seems that he was correct in his thinking.

If it works for you guys and you are happy, fine, kudos to you. Use it and be happy.

But please don't continually kick us that are disappointed with it, those of us who think it could be, what it was promised to be, and those of us who strive to bring it to the attention of He that matters. Bill Gates are you listening?

Ok, think I have made my point and had my rant,

No offence intended to anyone.

I wish you all a Merry and Covid free Christmas, and happy flying in 2021 in whichever sim you use.

Geoff

I think Geoff is telling the truth and that's why I won't buy it. lol

The same goes for flight sims:

Im starting to lose interest in FS2020 except to show off scenery eye candy. All the airports getting released would be great to pick up if we had decent aircraft to fly in and out of them.

it works for those that have pristine Windows systems, and a clean Flight Simulator, with no add-ons added whatsoever. I bet if they added just one add-on, they'd see. And, probably are flying with the keyboard!!!!

it works for those that have pristine Windows systems, and a clean Flight Simulator, with no add-ons added whatsoever. I bet if they added just one add-on, they'd see. And, probably are flying with the keyboard!!!!

 

I've recently had a clear-out of mods in my Community folder, I'm down to 49 now - plus 5 system file mods which alter tree size, tree fall colours, cockpit tooltip text size, taxi ribbon size and European ATC Phraseology. I'm also flying with CH Flight Sim Yoke and CH Pro Pedals, with control assignments programmed myself. Currently flying the Longitude (with the FDE fix mod, plus one of my own and my own custom livery) from payware EGNM to payware LIRQ with live traffic and live weather at FL450 and M0.74 - scenery sim my foot, it's been overcast all the way to the Alps so far!

Edited December 22, 2020 by tiger1962

I am a semi-retired scientist and engineer in real life. As to interest in aviation, I do recall 69 years ago, I got my first set of encyclopedias, Compton's, and finding an F-84 mislabeled in those volumes, and contacting the publisher to note that (well my parents wrote and sent the letter for me). I go back to the early versions of the product, run on an 80286 DOS machine. I joined this forum as biguglyguy back in the 1990s and began posting .air file repairs for folks using FS98 in the forums here, again as biguglyguy. Dave Eckert noticed my work back then , and we worked together on a few projects, some of which were eventually released as payware aircraft, for which I asked to be uncredited, and was not compensated (except Dave was kind enough to send me a joystick for Christmas one year). The first file that got in the library, was the P-43A which Dave put in the library in 2000. Subsequently there are 50 files in the library here, which I posted or collaborated on. I am pretty sure i had the first addon file for FSX, at least the first aircraft, the l2d2, to be posted in the library. Felix Rodriguez thought enough of my work, to ask me to do the FS2002 .air file for his Stits Playboy (Felix was a long time moderator on the forums). I only point this out, because you seem to imply I am new on the subject, or a :"fanboy".

I am truly sorry you were disappointed with the product. I do agree a manual would have been a great boon to the success of the program, and would have forestalled many of the "issues", as the commands and operations are so different than previous versions. I also agree it was a mistake to abandon so many of the keystroke conventions which have become accepted by the community in previous versions.

You can fly around the world, city to city, airport to airport in this simulator (actually, the longest flight I have made is from Martinique to Paris, which isn't around the world, so i can't personally verify that). I never said you could not fly the airliners, I said they are not study level, and they do have an odd rocking motion, but they do fly and navigate from airport to airport, if you follow the correct procedure, which is very different than the FSX B737. If you want to emulate every switch, it isn't there yet, but the aircraft do fly and navigate. Again, it is very different than the way it worked in FSX or FS2004, but it does work if you follow the procedure. I am not an airline pilot, I can't attest to the accuracy, but A320 pilots have found the aircraft to work correctly???. I do fly the Longitude around a good bit as a substitute for a regional airliner. I tend to fly in the more obscure locations, so a regional airliner would work well for me, I hope we get some soon.

As to CTDs, I stated I did have two from the map issue, but that is all I have had!! I don't use real weather, and I do have a very simple setup, just a keyboard, mouse and Thrustmaster joystck. I don't overclock this machine other than to run XMP as installed by the builder. I have never had anything in my community folder. I don't save flights.

I do use ATC, but I agree it isn't very good at all. If there are elevation errors, it will send you to ridiculous altitudes, and there is no way to really refuse an altitude assignment, so that does ruin that flight, but those elevation errors are very infrequent.

I don't use real weather. I don't know if it is a problem or not??

I do have minimal ground traffic. That means I don't encounter some of the issues others note on taxiways.

Some have successfully used addons in the community folder, but they are fastidious in cleaning out the folder before updates, as instructed. I can't attest to this but they seem to be reliable sources.

The GA aircraft I fly most often, work very well. I don't have the rudder problems, or the wild climbs. If you just go into showcase and let AI fly the aircraft, you do get crazy performance, but that is AI and i agree it isn't very good at all, but if you just use it for screenshots, it serves its purpose without much interruption.

As to other issues, time after time, the "problems" turn out to be something in the users setup. Complex rigs with multiple screens and many controllers often seem to cause problems. Pushing the equipment beyond it's capability is also a documented problem. Overclocking can be a real problem. This program pushes so much data, that slow memory can create problems. I don't fault those that try to run the program on minimal spec machines, but then don't complain about stutters at ultra settings. It isn't rubbish, as so many turn out to be an oops issue. If a large segment of the user base can run the program with few or no real problems, then logic says it must be something in the user's setup. The program doesn't just decide it doesn't like Fred, and randomly malfunction for him!

I don't have my head in the sand. Even the scenery isn't perfect. As an example, if you go to Rhineland, Texas, a small burg of about 50 people, you will find a magnificent Catholic cathedral which would hold multiple times the entire population. There are also large ag operation facilities. The program assumes the buildings for a small village should be tiny one story objects, rather than a regional landmark cathedral. I have noted the weird rocking motion of the large jets. ATC needs a lot of work. But the real problems don't get addressed as long as folks keep complaining about "bugs" that are not real, in the sense that it isn't the program's fault if your yoke doesn't work correctly. I like you, want to see the real problems addressed and repaired. But that won't happen as long as folks keep complaining about the A320, when in fact they just have not taken the time to learn how to use it properly, and just assumed it is "broken" because it does not work like the FSX B737.

I don't think we have the option to just start over. If this fails, we loose a huge opportunity to advance the simulator community, and bring in the new users that will keep it a vibrant community. I want to work incrementally, to get this right. If we don't keep chasing problems that are not inherent, we can fix the ones that are. In the mean time we can fly a beautiful sim with detail I never dreamed possible.

i still use FSX and enjoy the addon aircraft it accommodates. I am not trying to get rid of the other products!!

Like you, I wish everyone a truly Joyous and Merry Christmas!

Edited December 22, 2020 by plainsman

IMO, most of the issues people complain about stem from the misleading visuals MS used to promote the product. The visuals were so stunning, compared to older titles, that I think this implied to many purchasers that the entire package was something new and revolutionary. In brief - the most revolutionary aspects do NOT involve the aircraft themselves. Is this still a “flight sim?” Well...yes. The basic handling of most of the GA aircraft is not that bad. Is it realistic? No. And it never will be. I’m not addressing the tube liners here. I have never flown one, but I have experience in a fair range of different GA birds from early 20th century taildraggers to a couple of Experimentals I built myself. I suspect a lot of RW pilots might tend to be less critical of simulations because they realize that no matter how sophisticated they are - it’s never going to be the real thing. Without gravity, physics, and a real ocean of air, ANY simulation is going to be a pale replication. Can a title like MSFS give you a sense of real aviation? Absolutely. Could the "flight characteristics of the portrayed models be improved? Absolutely. Cam MS be faulted for selling us a bunch of (as yet) unfulfilled promises? Absolutely. Did they gouge us by overpricing this "faulty" software? I think not. In spite of a few issues I have shared with the rest of you, my premium version of MSFS didn’t cost any more than a couple bags of groceries. And I have had many hours of interesting engagement with it, in spite of the occasional disappointment. Do I have hopes for improvement? Absolutely. I am retired from RW flying now. I use MSFS to allow me to relive my 30 yrs. in real aviation. With a stick, rudder pedals, a throttle quadrant, and Track IR, I am enjoying a pretty decent extension of my RW experiences. A lot of you are seeking something that is never coming. Is it still worthy of your valuable time? Absolutely