Anyone play MSFS 2020?

J

Jesus is Lord

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 29, 2021
Messages
11
Display Name
Display name:
Jesus is Lord
Hello everybody! I was hoping you all could help me solve a big debate I have been having on another forum. I have had great interest in aviation since I was a small child. It probably stems from my father, who used to take me to the local, small GA airport next to the town we lived in, in order to plane watch. We would spend hours watching Cessnas, Cherokees, and Piper Cubs take off and land (even saw one's front landing gear collapse on touchdown and the propeller dig into the asphalt).

Anyone, I don't have a lot of air time- just 16 hours of lessons on the Cessna 152. However, I used to play countless hours of Microsoft Flight Simulators since the 3.1 version in the mid 90's. I haven't done much with my aviation passion recently, but am interested in getting the new 2020 Fight Simulator; maybe it will spark a fire that leads to be getting more lessons, who knows?

My question is, for anyone who has played it- have you noticed the landing roll in the game is much too short compared to the same plane under similar conditions in real life? I've watched a ton of videos of people landing in game on YouTube and compared them real landing videos from a cockpit view.

The common objection I have been getting is that casual gamers just smash full reverse thrust and manual braking. But I believe there is more to it than that.

Sorry if this is a boring topic or in the wrong place, but I wanted to get some real pilots' perspective on it!
 
Jesus is Lord said:
Hello everybody! I was hoping you all could help me solve a big debate I have been having on another forum. I have had great interest in aviation since I was a small child. It probably stems from my father, who used to take me to the local, small GA airport next to the town we lived in, in order to plane watch. We would spend hours watching Cessnas, Cherokees, and Piper Cubs take off and land (even saw one's front landing gear collapse on touchdown and the propeller dig into the asphalt).

Anyone, I don't have a lot of air time- just 16 hours of lessons on the Cessna 152. However, I used to play countless hours of Microsoft Flight Simulators since the 3.1 version in the mid 90's. I haven't done much with my aviation passion recently, but am interested in getting the new 2020 Fight Simulator; maybe it will spark a fire that leads to be getting more lessons, who knows?

My question is, for anyone who has played it- have you noticed the landing roll in the game is much too short compared to the same plane under similar conditions in real life? I've watched a ton of videos of people landing in game on YouTube and compared them real landing videos from a cockpit view.

The common objection I have been getting is that casual gamers just smash full reverse thrust and manual braking. But I believe there is more to it than that.

Sorry if this is a boring topic or in the wrong place, but I wanted to get some real pilots' perspective on it!
Click to expand...

I haven't compared the numbers but the landing roll did not seem unrealistic to me on GA aircraft.

I started back in the mid 80s with Flight Simulator 2.0. FS2020 is a huge step forward compared to the old ones. Its not the real thing, but it is pretty damn close.
 
sarangan said:
I haven't compared the numbers but the landing roll did not seem unrealistic to me on GA aircraft.

I started back in the mid 80s with Flight Simulator 2.0. FS2020 is a huge step forward compared to the old ones. Its not the real thing, but it is pretty damn close.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is definitely beautiful and a great sim, but many believe XPlane 11 is much more realistic regarding flight models, physics, and mechanical failures. From what I've seen, the Cessna 172 isn't so far off. It's mostly the big jets. Reverse thrust seems totally too powerful, and although the braking efficacy of all aircraft was apparently reduced a few months back, something still seems off with friction on the ground- maybe it's the spoilers as well. Although I can't say for sure because I've never actually flown an airliner, just seen cockpit videos and been a passenger many times.

Since you do GA, let me ask what would happen in your plane if you jammed full brakes soon after touching down?
 
Jesus is Lord said:
Yes, it is definitely beautiful and a great sim, but many believe XPlane 11 is much more realistic regarding flight models, physics, and mechanical failures. From what I've seen, the Cessna 172 isn't so far off. It's mostly the big jets. Reverse thrust seems totally too powerful, and although the braking efficacy of all aircraft was apparently reduced a few months back, something still seems off with friction on the ground- maybe it's the spoilers as well. Although I can't say for sure because I've never actually flown an airliner, just seen cockpit videos and been a passenger many times.

Since you do GA, let me ask what would happen in your plane if you jammed full brakes soon after touching down?
Click to expand...
I buy a new set of tires.
 
Jesus is Lord said:
Yes, it is definitely beautiful and a great sim, but many believe XPlane 11 is much more realistic regarding flight models, physics, and mechanical failures. From what I've seen, the Cessna 172 isn't so far off. It's mostly the big jets. Reverse thrust seems totally too powerful, and although the braking efficacy of all aircraft was apparently reduced a few months back, something still seems off with friction on the ground- maybe it's the spoilers as well. Although I can't say for sure because I've never actually flown an airliner, just seen cockpit videos and been a passenger many times.

Since you do GA, let me ask what would happen in your plane if you jammed full brakes soon after touching down?
Click to expand...

The same thing if you jammed full brakes in your car while going 70 mph. A lot of burned rubber and brake pads. Why this fixation with braking?
 
I've used every version of Microsoft Flight sim from 1.0 to FSX. When Microsoft gave up on the flight sim market, I jumped ship to X-Plane 11 and haven't looked back. Took a little getting used the interface, but now I like it better. X-Plane gives after market developers a much more open structure to model their aircraft add-ons than Microsoft ever did. The Zibo 737 download is incredible, and is a freeware add-on.

I've also gotten hooked on DCS for those urges to blow stuff up.
 
In general the flight model and ground model aren't the greatest. And yes, it's a game. That said it does have a great deal of utility particularly when it comes to flying into unfamiliar airports and practicing instrument procedures. I used it earlier this year to get ready for the backcountry and was astounded at the realism of the geographic features. There are many approaches where you rely on visual queues and they were all there. Amazing!

Edit: That said I was equally stunned by the lack of any manual or documentation. Pathetic...
 
sarangan said:
The same thing if you jammed full brakes in your car while going 70 mph. A lot of burned rubber and brake pads. Why this fixation with braking?
Click to expand...
Iono. I want a realistic landing is all. Not much fun when a 747 can stop in 2,000 ft when it should take 4,000.

So the Cessna won't spin around or flip over? I know there may be mechanical damage but I don't expect that level of programming at this point.
 
Jesus is Lord said:
Iono. I want a realistic landing is all. Not much fun when a 747 can stop in 2,000 ft when it should take 4,000.
Click to expand...
Well, it is what it is, my friend. I don’t know what to tell you. Just have to accept it for what it is - a game made by Microsoft.

Since this forum is generally comprised of real world pilots, you may have better luck writing your complaint on a flight-sim specific forum or sending a message to Microsoft’s support.
 
Jesus is Lord said:
Iono. I want a realistic landing is all. Not much fun when a 747 can stop in 2,000 ft when it should take 4,000.

So the Cessna won't spin around or flip over? I know there may be mechanical damage but I don't expect that level of programming at this point.
Click to expand...

Not a 152/172 - tri-gear - because, as the weight shifts forward from the over-aggressive braking, the traction of the main gear (where the brakes are) will be reduced. You'll burn a flat-spot onto the tires for a fact, and can easily get right through the rubber and into the cord. Airplane tires (even small ones) are spendy.

Now, try standing on the brakes on a tailwheel airplane (170, 140, 195, Cub), and you'll flip right over. Not good to watch.
 
Last edited:
XP11 all the way for me. Although MSFS is fun every once in a while for "sightseeing" flights
 
RyanB said:
Well, it is what it is, my friend. I don’t know what to tell you. Just have to accept it for what it is - a game made by Microsoft.

Since this forum is generally comprised of real world pilots, you may have better luck writing your complaint on a flight-sim specific forum or sending a message to Microsoft’s support.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I posted what I've noticed on the Microsoft Flight sim forum and pretty much got roasted until a moderator locked the thread because it wasn't going anywhere. I felt like a flat earther trying to convince everyone at Cape Canaveral that the globe model is a lie.

I posted a ticket as well- MSFS has great support from the devs and are constantly updating the game.
 
aviatorict said:
XP11 all the way for me. Although MSFS is fun every once in a while for "sightseeing" flights
Click to expand...

Agree. I haven't played either (although I did download the trial version of xp11 but my Walmart laptop got 5 fps even on min settings), but from what I have seen, xp11 is much closer to real world physics and flight models than MSFS.
 
SCCutler said:
Not a 152/172 - tri-gear - because, as the weight shifts forward from the over-aggressive braking, the traction of the main gear (where the brakes are) will be reduced. You'll burn a flat-spot onto the tires for a fact, and can easily get right through the rubber and into the cord. Airplane tires (even small ones) are spendy.

Now, try standing on the brakes on a tailwheel airplane (170, 140, 195, Cub), and you'll flip right over. Not good to watch.
Click to expand...

Ok, I suspected the tri grear models would greatly increase control with hard braking.
 
..are you only using the stock planes? Their flight models are disgraceful trash. I haven't "simmed" in years, but, back in the day there was some really slick after market planes that had much better modeling, PMDG was my "go-to" - the graphics are nice but the modeling just felt much more 'real' - the stock 747 in FSX what rocket up to 50,000 ft at like 6K/min full power. The PMDG one needed to step climb and felt far more "sluggish"

Once Microsoft left the sim world I effectively did too. What little time I had I spent either flying for real or doing something outdoors.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The Zibo 737 download is incredible
Click to expand...

I will admit to this forum that I have spent many evening hours with this simulated masterpiece in VR... X-Plane is the way to go. But remember - it's for fun. For your private, don't rely on it as a trainer. It ain't close. Even in VR. It's just not.

For IR, it was ok to get familiar with procedures.... but I never considered it a training aid.

But it's a fun diversion when ya can't fly IRL.
 
Deelee said:
I will admit to this forum that I have spent many evening hours with this simulated masterpiece in VR... X-Plane is the way to go. But remember - it's for fun. For your private, don't rely on it as a trainer. It ain't close. Even in VR. It's just not.

For IR, it was ok to get familiar with procedures.... but I never considered it a training aid.

But it's a fun diversion when ya can't fly IRL.
Click to expand...

Home simulator time has its benefits to those looking to learn. When I was instructing, I could tell the students that had used a sim and those that had not. It can help with systems and procedures, but what it can't replicate at this point is the feel and cues a real aircraft has. It can also teach and reinforce bad habits if not used properly as well.
 
For IR, it helped a little with procedures.

For private, it helped me look inside waaaaaay too much at first and my instructor had to beat that out of me the first few flights. Almost literally. And agree that there is zero feel to flying in the sim. Which, for me at least, was important when I was learning how to control the aeroplane.

But I defer to you as a CFI/CFII. If you can incorporate home sim time into the learning process, that's a good thing.
 
Deelee said:
For IR, it helped a little with procedures.

For private, it helped me look inside waaaaaay too much at first and my instructor had to beat that out of me the first few flights. Almost literally. And agree that there is zero feel to flying in the sim. Which, for me at least, was important when I was learning how to control the aeroplane.

But I defer to you as a CFI/CFII. If you can incorporate home sim time into the learning process, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

That is exactly some of the negatives I'd see in new students coming from the home sim world, head way too inside the cockpit. I was the same way as a young student. My instructor took to covering the panel with a sectional. And yes I was once beaten by said rolled up sectional. :D

On the plus side they made good instrument pilots later on as they were laser focused on maintaining headings and altitudes. For IR procedures, its a good way to review, but not self learn. Very important to learn the proper ways of doing things.
 
Last time I went with a CFI, he was impressed with how much time I spent looking outside the cockpit, even though I’d spent a lot of time flight simming.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
..are you only using the stock planes? Their flight models are disgraceful trash. I haven't "simmed" in years, but, back in the day there was some really slick after market planes that had much better modeling, PMDG was my "go-to" - the graphics are nice but the modeling just felt much more 'real' - the stock 747 in FSX what rocket up to 50,000 ft at like 6K/min full power. The PMDG one needed to step climb and felt far more "sluggish"

Once Microsoft left the sim world I effectively did too. What little time I had I spent either flying for real or doing something outdoors.
Click to expand...

I haven't even played the game yet, lol. Just tens of hours watching simmers land on YouTube then comparing with real pilots in real cockpits. I was hyped about the game's release, but never really considered getting it, because I knew I would need to dish out big bucks for a real powerhorse of a desktop. Since it's coming out the the Xbox, however, I figure a $499 system investment (if I can find one that is), plus the game, decent flat screen TV/monitor, and eventually a nice yolk/console/rudder pedals wouldn't be too bad.

I'm not sure if the Xbox will allow for purchasing planes from private devs; I sure hope it will!
 
I agree with the other posters that Xplane 11 is better. I fire up the FS2020 only once every couple of months, but it never runs without major headaches. I have reinstall Game Store, and a whole bunch of manual fiddling around with the Windows powershell. Overall it is a resource hog and a pain. But it does look pretty.
 
Last edited:
I got FS20 on day 1. Like most of you, I've been simming since the days of Bruce Artwick. With the eye candy cranked up, it's pretty. But the "live" weather was hilariously wrong everywhere but France, where the devs live. The C172 avionics were terrible and had the most incredibly stupid bugs (turn on the master alt, set RPM to 1000, watch the alternator discharge). ATC was just flat awful - have you ever heard real-world ATC call your little two-seat bugsmacker a "Cessna one hundred and fifty"? The scenery autogen put foliage on the ramps and buildings on the runways. The logbook is completely inaccurate, doesn't register TNGs, doesn't register takeoffs from untowered fields, and can't be edited. And so on, and so on. For the next six months. I gave up on FS20 in February, disconnected my Logitek yoke/quadrant/pedals and threw them in the closet.
 
I recently bought x plane. I've been playing Ms flight sim since it was a dos program.

2020 is trash.
X plane is way better.

It's far more intuitive. I found an aircraft that has the exact same instruments as the plane I'm training for my instrument in and it is pretty spot on.
 
Coinneach said:
I got FS20 on day 1. Like most of you, I've been simming since the days of Bruce Artwick. With the eye candy cranked up, it's pretty. But the "live" weather was hilariously wrong everywhere but France, where the devs live. The C172 avionics were terrible and had the most incredibly stupid bugs (turn on the master alt, set RPM to 1000, watch the alternator discharge). ATC was just flat awful - have you ever heard real-world ATC call your little two-seat bugsmacker a "Cessna one hundred and fifty"? The scenery autogen put foliage on the ramps and buildings on the runways. The logbook is completely inaccurate, doesn't register TNGs, doesn't register takeoffs from untowered fields, and can't be edited. And so on, and so on. For the next six months. I gave up on FS20 in February, disconnected my Logitek yoke/quadrant/pedals and threw them in the closet.
Click to expand...

MSFS has made a bunch of improvements on the ATC. Have you tried it recently?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I recently bought x plane. I've been playing Ms flight sim since it was a dos program.

2020 is trash.
X plane is way better.

It's far more intuitive. I found an aircraft that has the exact same instruments as the plane I'm training for my instrument in and it is pretty spot on.
Click to expand...

Agree about Xplane but those MSFS graphics man :/
 
Jesus is Lord said:
Agree about Xplane but those MSFS graphics man
Click to expand...

Ok, Imma geek out on X-Plane a bit now...

With proper add-ons and orthographic scenery, you can get a pretty good eye-candy experience out of X-Plane. If you want to create your own orthos, use Ortho4XP. If you want to download pre-made ones in the US... look for something called US Orthophotos by Forkboy (the downloads are huge, but they look good... it is what I use). For great weather visuals get UltraWeatherXP. For good weather injection into the sim (proper pressure, temps, wind/cloud layers), get ActiveSkyXP. Tons of great airport sceneries out there....

.... aaaaaand geek mode off.

Point is - XPlane can be made to look really good with a little effort, a massive hard drive and maybe a little cash (ActiveSkyXP and UltraWeatherXP cost a bit o' money).
 
What people buy

iu




What many think they are getting

iu
 
Coinneach said:
I got FS20 on day 1. Like most of you, I've been simming since the days of Bruce Artwick. With the eye candy cranked up, it's pretty. But the "live" weather was hilariously wrong everywhere but France, where the devs live. The C172 avionics were terrible and had the most incredibly stupid bugs (turn on the master alt, set RPM to 1000, watch the alternator discharge). ATC was just flat awful - have you ever heard real-world ATC call your little two-seat bugsmacker a "Cessna one hundred and fifty"? The scenery autogen put foliage on the ramps and buildings on the runways. The logbook is completely inaccurate, doesn't register TNGs, doesn't register takeoffs from untowered fields, and can't be edited. And so on, and so on. For the next six months. I gave up on FS20 in February, disconnected my Logitek yoke/quadrant/pedals and threw them in the closet.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything you said. One things FS2020 is great for is to fly around mountains. The terrain is frighteningly accurate, at least in the areas I flew around (CO & NM).
 
Deelee said:
Ok, Imma geek out on X-Plane a bit now...

With proper add-ons and orthographic scenery, you can get a pretty good eye-candy experience out of X-Plane. If you want to create your own orthos, use Ortho4XP. If you want to download pre-made ones in the US... look for something called US Orthophotos by Forkboy (the downloads are huge, but they look good... it is what I use). For great weather visuals get UltraWeatherXP. For good weather injection into the sim (proper pressure, temps, wind/cloud layers), get ActiveSkyXP. Tons of great airport sceneries out there....

.... aaaaaand geek mode off.

Point is - XPlane can be made to look really good with a little effort, a massive hard drive and maybe a little cash (ActiveSkyXP and UltraWeatherXP cost a bit o' money).
Click to expand...

Can you make the trees look round and full rather than looking like a cross from the top down view?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top