MSFS2020 Disappointment thread

M

Mtns2Skies

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,631
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
Yes I know there are many other threads on MSFS2020, but this is the one to air grievances against it. Granted I had massively, massively high expectations, but the simulator fell short... by a longshot. The only good parts I have are the visuals, which are out of this world, both in the cockpit and in the real world... but now for the bad.

The flight model... even with adjusting sensitivity, I can snaproll most of the planes with absolute ease. The ailerons feel like I'm flying an Extra 300 while I'm in a Cessna Caravan.

I tried doing some simulated single engine work in the Baron... and the plane flew no different with the engine off... I also was completely unable to feather the engine.

Lack of IFR resources... there are so few IFR resources in the game. Nowhere to get frequencies, nowhere to look up a low altitude enroute chart. The ATC still sucks too.

The G1000... is wrong, I haven't ever flown behind a G1000, but it seems wrong to me.

Water landings... for a game that prides itself on visuals... why is there no wake when I land a seaplane on the water?

The simulator feels like the travel channel to me... a lot of pretty pictures and images but no real content. I wish they just took FSX and made better graphics, now that I'm getting used to the user interface and how the game works I find there to be a lot lacking. Initially I thought it was just me not being used to the interface and not giving it a chance... Well I have given it a chance and now I'm really quite disappointed. This simulator is almost the opposite of all prior simulators... prior simulators were great for instruments only, but don't get your hopes up about VFR... this one is the opposite it's spectacular for pilotage, but goodluck practicing anything real.
 
Last edited:
The market this is created for are not pilots. It's created for amateurs who want the "feeling" of flying, not all of the actual mechanics of it.

If they had created for pilots, it would fall way short of their target audience.
 
Yeah, it definitely could have used a little more time in the oven. I wouldn’t write it off completely right now, though. There is a lot of really good stuff in there. Give it 6 months and see what incremental improvement the developer is able to make and what third parties are able to do.
 
The graphics are cool. The avionics in some of the core airplanes are not representative of 2020...
 
I'm not disappointed because I never got excited to begin with. The hype was all about the advance in graphics/terrain detail, something that is not important to me.
 
dmspilot said:
I'm not disappointed because I never got excited to begin with. The hype was all about the advance in graphics/terrain detail, something that is not important to me.
Click to expand...

I'll likely never see it as I've never been a gamer, even back when I was a kid. I'd rather fly real airplanes, ride real motorcycles, and sail real boats. What I'd pay to by a game capable computer and the extras (yoke, pedals, etc) will buy many hours in the plane, lots of gas for the motorcycle, etc.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I'll likely never see it as I've never been a gamer, even back when I was a kid. I'd rather fly real airplanes, ride real motorcycles, and sail real boats. What I'd pay to by a game capable computer and the extras (yoke, pedals, etc) will buy many hours in the plane, lots of gas for the motorcycle, etc.
Click to expand...
I enjoy flying planes I'm not able to in real life. I.e Cessna 208, Dehavilland Beaver, Quest Kodiak... It's far cheaper to fly them virtually than it is for real. Of course I'd rather do it for real, but not everyone is willing to hand over the keys.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I enjoy flying planes I'm not able to in real life. I.e Cessna 208, Dehavilland Beaver, Quest Kodiak... It's far cheaper to fly them virtually than it is for real. Of course I'd rather do it for real, but not everyone is willing to hand over the keys.
Click to expand...

OK, I can see that, maybe, if the sim is close enough to real.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I'll likely never see it as I've never been a gamer, even back when I was a kid. I'd rather fly real airplanes, ride real motorcycles, and sail real boats. What I'd pay to by a game capable computer and the extras (yoke, pedals, etc) will buy many hours in the plane, lots of gas for the motorcycle, etc.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is why I never got into Disney parks. Fake fun, fake adventures.
 
I've got an old version of msfs.. not even sure of the version. I do find it useful for keeping what I have that passes for a meager ifr scan less rusty between flights and lessons.. very useful, actually. For that purpose, graphic capabilities are unnecessary. For anything like really flying an airplane, an airplane or at least a MUCH more expensive simulator is necessary.
 
steingar said:
It's a video game, not a simulator.
Click to expand...

Kind of picking nits, isn't it? All flight simulators are video games, by definition. You can argue that it's not a very good simulator, but saying it's not a simulator at all is patently false.
 
steingar said:
It's a video game, not a simulator.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But they should then title it MSVG2020. ;)

Mtns2Skies said:
Yes I know there are many other threads on MSFS2020, but this is the one to air grievances against it. Granted I had massively, massively high expectations, but the simulator fell short... by a longshot...
Click to expand...

These things tend to improve with age.
I've been using X-Plane as an IFR training aid for a few years now, and Laminar keeps improving it continuously over time.
 
steingar said:
It's a video game, not a simulator.
Click to expand...
And your point is? It was never intended or represented to be a flight training device. If anyone is buying it because they expect it should do everything much more expensive systems do, they have no one to blame but themselves if they end up disappointed.
 
Yeah, it's game...and it's a gateway for new flight enthusiast into the world of aviation...and it's a learning opportunity...and it's another way for pilots who don't have the time or finances to fly as often as they would like to stay connected to aviation...and it's a platform on which one could do some useful training.
 
Bog standard MSFS was never very good for actual hard core simulator types. Wait until the third party addon market catches up. I used to be into FS9 in a big way. With the right (albeit pricey) add-ons, it was 1000x better than stock, especially avionics/IFR wise. Flight models are better but there will always be limitations there. Couple that with VATSIM, and it was really a great IFR training tool (at least VATSIM when I was active in the late 2000s, no idea what it's like now).
 
Bill Jennings said:
I'll likely never see it as I've never been a gamer, even back when I was a kid. I'd rather fly real airplanes, ride real motorcycles, and sail real boats. What I'd pay to by a game capable computer and the extras (yoke, pedals, etc) will buy many hours in the plane, lots of gas for the motorcycle, etc.
Click to expand...

Real is better, but sometimes real is far out of reach. As mentioned, I'm never going to afford to fly jets. I'm not going to get to fly all corners of the world. This isn't like really doing those things and really being there, exactly, but it's something and I'll take it.

Note: you don't need to buy a rig. Rent one! I've got a VM I've allocated in Azure to run this thing. About a dollar an hour of play time, always up-to-date hardware, crazy download speeds so you can play with all the graphics turned on and not mess with your housemates streaming Netflix. I have it installed locally, too, and the latency is better locally, of course. But I can't turn on all the options because my internet bandwidth available doesn't come close to what FS2020 demands for all the graphical options. I don't have all the kinks ironed out yet, but when I do, I'll post up about it if anyone is interested.
 
Hmmmm. I thought it was better than the real thing. At least that's what someone said once...
 
It's been out for less than a week, give them some time to get feedback. I find msfs2020 quite fun and somewhat realistic as far as flight characteristics go. It's a bit annoying that some of the flightdeck features say "inop"; and the CHT's never change regardless of the mixture / throttle input.
 
AKiss20 said:
Bog standard MSFS was never very good for actual hard core simulator types. Wait until the third party addon market catches up. I used to be into FS9 in a big way. With the right (albeit pricey) add-ons, it was 1000x better than stock, especially avionics/IFR wise. Flight models are better but there will always be limitations there. Couple that with VATSIM, and it was really a great IFR training tool (at least VATSIM when I was active in the late 2000s, no idea what it's like now).
Click to expand...

Exactly. Give it some time, it will come around for sure.

Full disclosure, I was disappointed with it as well and requested a refund from Steam. I'll wait.
 
idahoflier said:
I'm overdue for a new workstation and was waiting for this release as the motivation for the upgrade. Based on the feedback I guess I'll wait a bit longer... :-(
Click to expand...

Sierra_Hotel said:
Exactly. Give it some time, it will come around for sure.

Full disclosure, I was disappointed with it as well and requested a refund from Steam. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

New gaming level PC and MSFS2020 was going to be my big Christmas present to myself this year. Will definitely wait. I'm guessing in another year it will shake-out to a better product.
 
I liked it. The visuals are stunning. The best use for this is for checking out a route over a complicated terrain. But I agree that the airplanes could be better. Its not the best tool for someone learning how to fly, but I don't think there is anything out there for that purpose either.
 
The single engine pistons aren't bad, as long as you hand-fly them. ATC is bad. If you know one of the planes well, like the 152 or the Bonanza, and you use it to fly VFR for entertainment, it's actually quite nice. For IFR or actually using any of the fancy glass panels, forget it.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Kind of picking nits, isn't it? All flight simulators are video games, by definition. You can argue that it's not a very good simulator, but saying it's not a simulator at all is patently false.
Click to expand...
But X-Plane is written mainly by a pilot and it can be used as a training tool per the FAA. More than a a game in that case.
 
I like X-Plane with a VR headset and physical yoke / throttle when I can't fly. Keeps my head in the aviation space. Surely not realistic, but if you follow the same preflight routine and checklist and try to follow the same procedures you do in real life it keeps things... fresh, I guess. It's also really fun especially if you have good scenery in the areas where you fly VFR. With some add-ons, it is pretty good for IR practice - not legal for currency obviously, but it does a good enough job again keeping things fresh enough for when you do go fly in real life.

MSFS doesn't support VR, so I'm not a buyer. When they start supporting the headset I own, I'll buy it for the heck of it.
 
So we've got several comments that the visuals are great but its terrible for and kind of IFR. Why is that? Are navaids and approaches missing?

Someone said there are no built in IFR charts. What would stop you from using an actual chart? That's what I always used to do. I always used real approach plates as well. Is there anything that would prevent that in this version?

Everyone is saying ATC sucks. Is the same worse or better than ATC in previous versions?

Although I never tried it, I know there used to be some sort of online thing where people could act as pilot or controllers. Are there any plans to do that with this version?

I've seen mentioned here and elsewhere that some of the avionics are inop. Has Microsoft said whether or not they plan to fix those or can we expect them to always be inop?
 
For me, MSFS was what got me into aviation. From flying the big jets around the world, to then flying smaller jets, to learning how to read charts, do approaches, understand the instruments... eventually, I got so good at it that I decided I should try the real thing. Then I saw I had a lot to learn! :eek: But I was familiar with the cockpit and instruments so my FS experience did help some during my PPL and now during my IFR training (but now I use XP11 for it).
 
flhrci said:
But X-Plane is written mainly by a pilot and it can be used as a training tool per the FAA. More than a a game in that case.
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah sure, with a $1K version of X-Plane along with $10K worth of supporting "certified" hardware to go with it. Not quite apples/apples. The $60 version you buy is no more useful than FSX/FS2020 in terms of use for logging sim time in your logbook. I understand your point, but I could see FSX having been certified if Microsoft cared enough to try and certify it with the FAA. The 3rd party add-ons made it pretty good, just like they do for XP. I would wait and see what it looks like in about a year after the MS team has refined their product from it's current "probably shouldn't have released it" state. Tweaking some of the flight profiles and instrumentation stuff will fix most of people's complaints, and it shouldn't be a particularly difficult fix. The 3rd party add-on developers will have a field day with it.
 
MacFlier said:
For me, MSFS was what got me into aviation. From flying the big jets around the world, to then flying smaller jets, to learning how to read charts, do approaches, understand the instruments... eventually, I got so good at it that I decided I should try the real thing. Then I saw I had a lot to learn! :eek: But I was familiar with the cockpit and instruments so my FS experience did help some during my PPL and now during my IFR training (but now I use XP11 for it).
Click to expand...

I share the same sentiment. I got into aviation primarily because of MSFS back in the 80's. I own both Xplane and FS2020. I like Xplane mostly because I spent a very very long time to figure out how to create my own airplanes and panels. I don't know if that is even possible with FS2020. I don't care too much how accurate the flight dynamics are, how it stalls or spins, or if I can fly upside down under a bridge. Visuals are important, not just outside the window, but inside the cockpit too. Xplane does a pretty good job with the cockpit panel, but the outside world is far better with FS2020. In 30 years, FS2020 is the only one that has come close to VFR navigation. They both have their merits. I intend to keep both.
 
MacFlier said:
For me, MSFS was what got me into aviation. From flying the big jets around the world, to then flying smaller jets, to learning how to read charts, do approaches, understand the instruments... eventually, I got so good at it that I decided I should try the real thing. Then I saw I had a lot to learn! :eek: But I was familiar with the cockpit and instruments so my FS experience did help some during my PPL and now during my IFR training (but now I use XP11 for it).
Click to expand...

I would attribute much of my being able to pass the private in 41hrs to the hundreds of hours I spent tinkering with MSFS from the 3.0, MSFS-Win 95, 2004, and FSX variants. It allowed me to understand general flight control dynamics, instrument readout and behavior, and navigation by pilotage. Sure, it isn't going to help you be much better in the real world for control feedback and visual/audio cues, but it gets you the core pieces so that it all makes sense when you do get into the cockpit. I loved aviation, and books/MSFS were about the only way to scratch that itch until I was old enough (and had enough money) to take that first discovery flight. MSFS 2020 will be fine, and it is designed to be fun and engaging, especially to those who aren't pilots.
 
I have FSX, not 2020.

Funny what I liked before I became a pilot and now how critical I’ve become.

For IFR anti-rust, visuals now don’t matter, the flying and weather characteristics do.

If it’s visual preflight I’m after, Google Earth works fine.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
So we've got several comments that the visuals are great but its terrible for and kind of IFR. Why is that? Are navaids and approaches missing?

Someone said there are no built in IFR charts. What would stop you from using an actual chart? That's what I always used to do. I always used real approach plates as well. Is there anything that would prevent that in this version?

Everyone is saying ATC sucks. Is the same worse or better than ATC in previous versions?

Although I never tried it, I know there used to be some sort of online thing where people could act as pilot or controllers. Are there any plans to do that with this version?

I've seen mentioned here and elsewhere that some of the avionics are inop. Has Microsoft said whether or not they plan to fix those or can we expect them to always be inop?
Click to expand...

The 430/530 are completely broken as far as I can tell. I couldn't even get them to go direct, let alone load an approach. I did finally figure out that I could get it to take data if I was in the air, but then the game crashed, so in went back to xplane. I'll try it again later. Garmin let them use their name in the game, so I assume they won't let them remain broken. I've heard the g1000 is worse, but I've never used a real one, and didn't try the one in- game so I can't speak to what's wrong with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top