Well, that was fun but I'm back! (from FS2020)

So I arranged to be gifted FS2020 (I refuse to call it MSFS, as some would like, as if there was never an MSFS before) for Xmas and, it being the New Toy, have been playing it almost exclusively, with occasional hops in FSX and P3D to compare the handling and performance of planes. Having logged about 45 hours total, in the last couple of days, I'm back to mixing in FS2004, which I had only rediscovered through this forum a couple of months ago. Is there any reason to go back? Is there any reason not to go back completely and ignore FS2020? These are the questions I asked myself.

 

This will not be an FS2020 bashing post. I can't help it if there are ignorant FS2020 bashing replies, but the fact is that FS2020 is an excellent consumer flight simulator and a substantial, though uneven, advance over anything marketed previously.

 

FS2020 is best at what some of us still value Golden Wings for: low and slow VFR sightseeing. The visuals are truly impressive. I'm not going to say the representation of the terrain is unmatched or unparalleled, because it is, in fact, matched and paralleled by the best scenery addons for P3D, and by the maps in IL-2 Great Battles and DCS. But those are for limited areas. If you want to cruise around Wichita or Oklahoma City or Chichen Itza, FS2020 is the best you can do, by far. The best fun you can have in stock FS2020, IMO, is to do this in one of the Super Cub knockoffs provided with the game. Better yet, as of this week, Carenado is selling an FS2020 version of its Waco YMF-5. If, like me, you bought the cheapest $60 version of the game knowing that you'd rather spend further money on airplanes you really want rather than a (poorly modeled) 787 or Cirrus in the deluxe game, this is the first offering that makes you feel smart for that strategy.

 

Above about 5000 feet, the differences in the scenery quality get much smaller. If you have Orbx global textures for FSX or P3D, once you're high enough for individual landmarks not to be so evident, those sims look good enough that you might easily feel justified in choosing them over FS2020 for the sake of better frame rates and wider aircraft selection. What about FS2004 though? Well, that is really a step down. No matter what addon you have installed, the limitations on texture size, the checkerboarding of texture tiles, the crude light-handling, and the poor integration of scenery objects with textures jump out at you after a few hours on FS2020.

 

As a caveat, some of the scenery in FS2004 is better than FS2020, even at low level. That's true of even the bone stock FS2004 scenery. If you visit Pisa, Italy, in the current version of FS2020, you get to see the Non-Leaning Grain Silo of Pisa, because FS's autogen couldn't figure out the Leaning Tower and they haven't hand-done that area yet. FS2020 is also bad at large bridges, which it tends to interpret as dam-like walls. FS2004, FSX and P3D often have terrible bridges but at least they're bridges. There are also glitches in FS2020's elevation data that result in odd elevated terrain features. They resolve as you get closer, but are immersion breaking.

 

Above 10000 feet, FS2004 still puts up a pretty good showing visually, especially with replacement textures. If you are doing a long, high flight, mostly looking down at general types of terrain or the tops of clouds, you don't gain much going from FS2004 to FS2020.

 

At any altitude, the thing closest to you - your own plane - looks progressively better in each generation of sim, mainly because of the light and shadow modeling. Partly, aircraft made for the newer sims are just better and more detailed than ones made for the old, because they were made to take advantage of that better modeling and also have more polygons and larger textures to support higher monitor resolutions. But some of the community addons for FS2020 are FSX models that, themselves, trace their ancestry back to FS2004 or even earlier products - you're almost flying the same product in FS2020 as in FS2004. In those cases, it is really surprising how good FS2020's modeling can make a hoary old aircraft look, even relative to P3D. This applies both to external views and to the virtual cockpit.

 

Next, there's the flight models. There has been a lot of commentary about FS2020's flight modeling, which is still clearly a work in progress, much to the annoyance of third-party aircraft developers who are still waiting for the sim's flight modeling to stabilize so that they can finish and release their planes. Still, real-world pilots and long-time simmers seem to agree that FS2020's modeling of the general aviation types is fine, maybe the best of any sim yet, but that as you climb the ladder of size and power it gets worse and worse, so that the big tubes are really badly modeled. No doubt this is a priority area for updates, but it seems likely the the stock FS2020 planes will never reach the fidelity of systems of, say, the Historic Jetliners Group planes for FS2004. That will have to be done by third party developers.

 

I have heard aircraft developers say that FS2004's flight modeling is too crude to be worth developing for nowadays, and that FSX was the first product in the line that deserves to be called a flight simulator. I think such claims may be overstated. We all know that there isn't that much difference between and FSX and and FS2004 .air file and the sim engines weren't all that different. If you constantly hop from FS2004 to FSX to P3Dv4 like I do, you don't feel radical changes in the way similar planes behave across different sims. That's one of the nice things about them. You can let your choice of which sim to boot up be dictated by what you want to fly right now and what's in your virtual hangar for each sim. Critics would say they all share a characteristic "on rails" style, based on their use of the same basic MS sim engine. If so, that style is broken by FS2020, which feels less like FS2004, FSX, and P3D than they each feel like each other. I'm not sure that all of the differences are more realistic, or even intended, and online arguments are raging about this. FS2020 may start to feel more like the older sims as they refine the flight model, which right now is criticized for overly sensitive controls, excessive crosswind effects, pitch instability that makes some planes difficult for humans and impossible for their own autopilots to control, and other things.

 

Impatient modders have addressed the lack of variety in aircraft types in the stock game by figuring out how to convert FSX planes. FS2020 has a semi-supported "legacy" flight model that allows these to be used without any comprehension of how the new flight modeling works, and the resulting planes often look great and fly surprisingly well. I have about 25 of these in my FS2020 hangar now, mostly vintage and warbirds, and would be playing the game less often if they weren't there, having taken the position from the outset that I don't care how good the landscape looks if I can't fly over it in a Travel Air or a P-51. That need has been met quite adequately, at least on an interim basis until fully developed FS2020 versions of these planes are developed. But these planes don't fly like they did in FSX/P3D, even using the legacy flight model, which means they don't fly the way the developers intended and in that sense aren't "right." So if you want the authentic feel of flying a plane currently covered only by legacy conversions, you are better off loading P3D, FSX, or even FS2004. To take an example, David Copley's P-38s in FS2004 are better than the legacy converted Milviz P-38 in FS2020.

 

Probably the area of least advance, and maybe even some retreat, in FS2020 relative to FS2004/FSX/P3D is in ATC and navigation. Nav instruments and autopilots in FS2020 are still buggy, but that will eventually be worked out. The ATC controller bots in FS2020 are no smarter than the ones in FS2004, and it is not clear that there are plans to change that. It still gives you ridiculous IFR landing vectors, assigns you runways that greatly exceed the crosswind limits of your plane when more appropriate ones are available, and has the same limited menu of interactions. In terms of verbal communication, the one nice advance is that FS2020 now uses text-to-speech synthesis, so it will call you whatever you want - even using your own name - without being limited to a canned vocabulary, either stock or augmented by an add-on. But even that improvement comes with a stilted speech pattern and cadence that is noticeably worse than any of the previous sims, and that seems out of step with the quality of speech synthesis in other video games and productivity software. It also turns out that AI air traffic is a huge resource hog in FS2020, and many users, including me, have had to turn it way down or off to make the sim run without crashing. So the skies are pretty empty.

 

If I were to summarize all the above in sort of a table, I would start by giving FS2004 a baseline score of 100 in each of the categories I've discussed, then rate each successive gen of sim on how it improved (or not!). And my scoring would go something like this.

 

FS2004 (arbitrary baseline scores):

Visuals: 100

Flight models: 100

Nav/ATC: 100

 

FSX:

Visuals: 120

Flight models: 110

Nav/ATC: 100

 

P3Dv4:

Visuals: 150

Flight models: 115

Nav/ATC: 100

 

FS2020:

Visuals: 200

Flight models: Range from 130 for GA to 80 for jetliners

Nav/ATC: 80 currently, may reach 100 with updates

 

So how does this relate to my personal sim journey and continued use of FS2004? Well, as you can maybe infer from the above, I'll still be flying FS2004. But my focus may change. I'll probably fly Golden Wings less. For the Waco over Wichita scenario, FS2020 is just way better. On the other hand, my California Classics propliner and historic jetliners use will keep going strong. If I want to simulate any kind of commercial trip of more than an hour duration at high altitude, dealing with ATC and other traffic, FS2020 is just not the platform - which has to be a major issue for the new game, considering how many simmers are into exactly that. In between - let's say, King Air from LA to San Diego at 10000 feet - FS2004 isn't really a contender, but it's a toss-up between P3D and FS2020.

 

FS2004 will also continue to be viable for planes I enjoy flying that aren't available in any other sim, like the F2G Corsair or the Schneider Cup addon planes. This is significant because people were saying, "FS2004 is so cartoon-like after flying FS2020 that you won't be able to go back, even for the sake of its unique planes." My personal experience is that this is not true. Wringing out an F2G in FS2004 is absolutely still fun. FS2004 and its addons were designed by guys just as smart and talented as the ones designing FS2020 and its addons - in some cases, the exact same people. Flying FS2004 is like playing any top-grade video game from that era - a fully satisfying experience, only a little diminished by the fact that it could use a few more polygons and bigger textures.

 

Keep 'em flying,

 

August

A very interesting and thoughtful review August. I enjoyed reading it. (As a part-time simmer, with my freebie FS2002, am happy with my "legacy" software for now, but am interested in the "FS2020 journey" that you and others experience, for future reference.)

Do tell WHAT FS2020 is. Yet another thumb sucked name for Microsoft Flight Simulator? As far as I'm aware, even Asobo developers call the dim by its contracted name.. MSFS.

 

Anyhow, it is all about immersion first, then realism. We've seen this when pilots are flying our sim, and upon finals, they actually brace themselves, anticipating touchdown. That's in FS2004, freeware scenery and aircraft.

 

For me, FS2004 ticks all the boxes because

No expensive hardware required

Muliple installs

Range of aircraft, props etc

It just works!

And my very favorite.. Ford Tri-Motor Project scenery, from the late Harry Smith.

Thanks for sharing your insight. Interesting reading.

 

nebojsa

Thanks for your thoughtful and extensive analysis. When FS2020 was announced I had thought of buying it. But due to the apparent "in development" state of it and my extensive collection of add-ons for FS2004, I'll hold off, as least for the time being. There are a lot of excellent add-ons for FS2004, including the Historic Jetliners Group planes that you mention and as for scenery, the ground textures of the Netherlands by NL2000 and Don Muang airport by Thai Flight Simulator (both freeware) show what can be done with FS2004.

Hard to beat FS2004 for just all round usability. What we’d call in cricket as an all-rounder.

And. I’ve to see you posting again, Robin!

August,

 

I read your review and must say that you've not only captured many of my thots, but added even more thoughtful analysis. I, too, received MSFS as a Christmas gift. I've been flight simming, and real flying, for many years. I'd been holding off on MSFS, but the gift was irresistible. I wanted to upgrade to the Deluxe edition before installing it, because I wanted the analog-gauge C172 and the C152 Aerobat. But, alas, Microsoft Store would not let me do that.

 

The eye candy of MSFS down low is truly awesome. And flights around Oklahoma City (as you pointed out) look a whole lot like what I see out the windscreen (well, except for the control tower at Wiley Post, PWA, my home airport). But the inability to revise a panel to match the aircraft that I fly is more than troublesome to me. In FSX (and historically, in FS9 too) I can make a 2d panel for any airplane, a panel that matches my needs. Single engine land, thank you. Tail dragger preferred, aerobats a fun luxury. MSFS C152 does spin better than in FSX, I must say. Although as others have said, MSFS is too twitchy, even when I work the joystick control elements.

 

I've looked into the SDK a little bit, which is still crude, basic and not complete. The complexity is daunting, and I'm not sure that I will want to learn another language (HTML vs XML). And I am not sure I'll even be able to edit gauges if they're built into the model, or place my own gauges on a panel somewhere. That's a real regret for me. And I guess 2D panels are now history in MSFS.

 

And so my bottom line is that I'll probably launch in the C152 or the Carbon Cub to just play around in my neighborhood. But if I want to do some serious, say nav and IFR, practice then I'll be back in FSX, thank you very much.

Nice long descriptive review.

 

As ad avid ai fan I am still sitting on FS9 for much of the same reasons mentioned here (abundant add-ons, sliders up all the way, etc) but there will come a time to leave in behind I guess.

 

Just not quite yet...

Good post. I appreciate your well thought out analysis.

 

While I personally love the new sim, I do see some of it's shortcomings. I currently have 2020, FSX, and FS9 installed, and enjoy each for what they are.

 

I wish 2020 was more user friendly at times, but I can't lie, I do love exploring VFR.

 

FSX I love for the extra payware addons like the qw787, and I love FS9 for the classics and basic program stability.

 

What a fun time to be a simmer, and I've never even touched P3D or X-Plane.

 

Happy flying!

Hard to beat FS2004 for just all round usability. What we’d call in cricket as an all-rounder.

And. I’ve to see you posting again, Robin!

I'm still in hospital, just having physiotherapy to get me walking 100%, then I'm off home. What a journey this has been.

Thank you August for taking the time to share a very thoughtful review. I myself stuck with the old Sublogic Airline Simulator for a very long time, took a sabbatical, then moved directly into FSX, and just recently made a switch to P3D v4. I concur, there is much familiarity between FSX and P3D. Some may say this is bad as well as good. I fly commuter jets now almost exclusively, but of course came from heavies. Because I don't stay at low level I for now am not tempted with MS2020 until things are more sorted. Especially since my hardware is very hard on frame rates and with a very high-end machine I just recently have things sorted out.

 

Your review is refreshing as I think it is very realistic as to what the various sims have to offer. It is not a bad/good comparison but rather pointing out that each one is a different "snowflake" and have their pros and cons.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to share your experience with each of the sims.

I got FS2020 for my birthday and honestly I dont see why everyone hates on the flight model. Im a Private Pilot and was eager to see how the 152 and 172 fly and from what I can tell the stall characteristics are very close as is the flight handling. From my view the flight model is very well done. The one improvement would be soft field takeoff characteristics. I found that even with full aft elevator the 152s nose would not lift off till around 15kts. This isn't how it is in real life as when I apply full power the nose pops off almost immediately. But all in all they've done a good job. Will it overtake X-Plane 11 eventually? Yes I think so. Is it better than the flight models of FS9 and FSX? I say by far. I have to force myself to fly a GA airplane in fs9 due to lack scenery and the flight dynamics. As for Airliners, I think FS9 works well for that and ill continue to fly it. But this will be a never ending debate of some calling a sim and some calling it a game.

Lol.. The definitive definition is that it's a game that simulates a simulator.