MSFS2020 Disappointment thread

What is the most realistic flight simulator currently? Realistic stalls, spins, flight physics of each aircraft, etc.
 
Rein Hart said:
What is the most realistic flight simulator currently? Realistic stalls, spins, flight physics of each aircraft, etc.
Click to expand...

X-Plane claims to be, due to their flight engine being essentially physics math based.

Most sims use lookup tables for “what should happen next” and don’t try to model the actual wing and airflow behavior. Saves on processor needs.

All of them have to take some mathematical shortcuts.
 
denverpilot said:
X-Plane claims to be, due to their flight engine being essentially physics math based.
Click to expand...

I have never used a model in X-plane that correctly models stalls. There is a YouTube video of a 152 model that does it right. Otherwise, one of the wings drop followed by a spin. Furthermore, the climb rates are way off for many of the default aircraft and many of the add-ons. I found stall behavior in the default FSX 172 to be more realistic than X-plane, but on the other hand it won’t spin realistically if at all on FSX.

At the end of the day, these are all simulations. Despite the purist approach to the X-plane flight model, I have found simulation has been somewhat disappointing in certain respects. Overall, I have considered X-plane and FSX to be practically be net equals in their “realism.” I do wonder what FS2020 is like and hope to try it soon.
 
This big question I have is "does Mxsmanic like it?"
 
Aviator305 said:
I have never used a model in X-plane that correctly models stalls. There is a YouTube video of a 152 model that does it right. Otherwise, one of the wings drop followed by a spin. Furthermore, the climb rates are way off for many of the default aircraft and many of the add-ons. I found stall behavior in the default FSX 172 to be more realistic than X-plane, but on the other hand it won’t spin realistically if at all on FSX.

At the end of the day, these are all simulations. Despite the purist approach to the X-plane flight model, I have found simulation has been somewhat disappointing in certain respects. Overall, I have considered X-plane and FSX to be practically be net equals in their “realism.” I do wonder what FS2020 is like and hope to try it soon.
Click to expand...

Yup. :)

I did say “claims to be”. :)

Hey Nvidia released a nice $1500 GPU for this stuff yesterday...! Ha.
 
Even the $500 one is a significant upgrade over the 20 series cards.
 
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...
I agree.

I had a bunch of non pilot friends texting me about how awesome the game is and how much I'm going to "love it" because I'm a pilot!! But outside of beautiful graphics it's basically a video game. Not a simulator. The G1000 is indeed all wrong and to your point about flight dynamics, etc, I have noticed that obvious things like the mixture knob don't do anything. In the SR22 the fuel flow doesn't change with mixture. Total garbage.

Anyway. A disappointing experience

**HOWEVER - the stock planes with Microsoft Flight Sim have always been complete piles of garbage. I used to spend a lot of time researching and buying third party aircraft adds ons, that were much more accurate overall. Way back in the day for FSX PMDG had incredibly accurate and well thought out aircraft to purchase. The kind of stuff where you pick a plane and you get a cold and dark cockpit and have to actually follow a proper manual to turn the cockpit on, light the engines, load the FMS, and start flying. The other stupid thing, and this always bugged me with Microsoft flight sim.. all the planes have 0.0 for tach and hobbes. It would be cool to have those actually log the time that you've flown that plane. That can't take more than a handful of lines of code.

Anyway. Like it was already stated. It's not a simulator. Just a video game with pretty graphics. If you want good flying dynamics you have to go X-Plane.. or save your money and fly a real airplane. The cheapest (I think) PA-28-161 in our club rents for $111. Granted, it's bare bones. But if I want to feel like I'm flying I'd rather go rent that for an hour than sit in my office playing computer games.

Incidentally, the visuals aren't even that sharp when you get close to buildings, and many of the representations aren't that accurate. Buckingham Palace became office buildings.. and the list goes on.

The graphics too.. I think Microsoft is getting too much credit. They're using OpenStreetMaps and loading an AI on top of that.

If you *really* want the best flight simulator you'd have to put together some of the guys from X-Plane (for accurate flight modeling) and merge them with the dudes who wrote Crysis to max out the graphics. Back in 2008 Crysis already had blades of grass that moved in the wind. Microsoft, by comparison, still loads the same generic texture repetitively for the water features

Oh.. and the runways.. how much of a low rent effort is this?? Seriously, you just copy and paste the same generic "runway.bmp" graphic over and over?? This is from Stefan Drury's video below. If anyone is interested in this game, this short video should be a must watch to properly quell expectations. Look at how awful the Cirrus cockpit rendition is.. where's the little tray you keep your phone and CAPS pin in?? Holy hell this is poorly done

upload_2020-9-2_12-19-14.png

If you really want to know what a Cirrus in X-Plane can look like then check this out. HOLY CRAP is this well done!! https://torquesim.com/sr22/

upload_2020-9-2_12-21-14.png
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
Even the $500 one is a significant upgrade over the 20 series cards.
Click to expand...

Looks like. Gamers Nexus pointed out a bit of marketing wank in the announcement and wants to get real hardware to test raytracing/RTX vs rastering — to see if stuff not using RTX benefits as much as they are hyping.

But the sheer number of transistors and the new Samsung 8nm process definitely looks like a massive improvement.

Anybody who bought a 2080Ti in the last couple months is kicking themselves now. LOL
 
Tantalum said:
If anyone is interested in this game, this short video should be a must watch to properly quell expectations. Look at how awful the Cirrus cockpit rendition is.. where's the little tray you keep your phone and CAPS pin in?? Holy hell this is poorly done



If you really want to know what a Cirrus in X-Plane can look like then check this out. HOLY CRAP is this well done!! https://torquesim.com/sr22/
Click to expand...

:lol: Really? No **** an aftermarket plane pack is better than the stock gear.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
:lol: Really? No **** an aftermarket plane pack is better than the stock gear.
Click to expand...
And you're not wrong.. and maybe it's the AI ad sorting algorithm having a field day.. but I see 1-3 articles daily of how EPIC the new FS2020 is.. and then I see an SR22 cockpit (the most widely selling GA plan for the last decade plus) and it looks like something crudely drawn in paint with a very poorly simulated G1000..

I mean it's a freaking flight simulator, and the aircraft themselves are rubbish

Imagine if the folks at Forza tried to pull this same type of nonsense
upload_2020-9-2_14-5-17.png

..just another example of the GA world being decades behind the tech curve

^okay that list bit was tounge-in-cheek
 
We're not the target audience for the base software, you have to remember that. Joe Blow non-pilot has no clue what the cockpit of a Cirrus is supposed to look like. The aftermarket is what helps turn software like this into something the hardcore sim market can appreciate. For the casual gamer/aviation enthusiast, 2020 is a game changer and every bit as epic as is being claimed. It will come around for the rest of us once the add-ons catch up.
 
Tantalum said:
... I see 1-3 articles daily of how EPIC the new FS2020 is.. and then I see an SR22 cockpit (the most widely selling GA plan for the last decade plus) and it looks like something crudely drawn in paint with a very poorly simulated G1000..
Click to expand...

Remember the GenPop thinks Office is awesome. LOL
 
denverpilot said:
Remember the GenPop thinks Office is awesome. LOL
Click to expand...
I absolutely abhor that show. it's not subtle or clever enough to be a satire but not realistic enough to actually be relatable. Sort of like Big Bang Theory. It's just a dumb show with an obviously moronic boss and an obnoxious smug a-hole who falls in love with the receptionist

It's awful
 
Bashing MS2020 and Office! I like them both - I view the game for what it is, a fun immersive airplane video game. I'm looking forward to some cool addon airplanes.

Now onto Office.... I've tried a number of consumer products and always go back to Excel and Visio.

Edit - I'm sorry thought we were talking about MS Office. I also could not get into the TV Show The Office. I tried several times to start it as well.
 
Tantalum said:
I absolutely abhor that show. it's not subtle or clever enough to be a satire but not realistic enough to actually be relatable. Sort of like Big Bang Theory. It's just a dumb show with an obviously moronic boss and an obnoxious smug a-hole who falls in love with the receptionist

It's awful
Click to expand...

Lol I’m talking about the other garbage Microsoft puts out, not a show. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Lol I’m talking about the other garbage Microsoft puts out, not a show. :)
Click to expand...
the thing with Office is that they have such a strong Monopoly there's really nothing else out there that's usable..

I hung onto open Office for as long as I could but it was ultimately too cumbersome to use and share documents at work and with friends
 
Tantalum said:
the thing with Office is that they have such a strong Monopoly there's really nothing else out there that's usable..

I hung onto open Office for as long as I could but it was ultimately too cumbersome to use and share documents at work and with friends
Click to expand...

Yup. Doesn’t have to be quality software to win... just has to be popular. :)
 
The best definition of enterprise software i've heard is "Software for which the person making the purchasing decision isn't the person who will ultimately use it."
 
Hopefully X-Plane updates their graphics while maintaining the realistic flight dynamics. How does Prepar3D realism compare with X-Plane?
 
Realistic flight dynamics is not critical for GA pilots practicing routine flights. It makes no difference if it is a look up table or finite element theory or whatever. They are all good enough for our purpose. Xplane has a large user base and people have figured out how to add custom objects, custom cockpits, plugins and whole lot more. FS2020 is more of a black box, but it is way ahead for scenery. If you want to practice a flight through a complicated terrain, FS2020 is the way to go. If you want to do something very specific and customized, then Xplane is the way to go. I have both, and don't plan on giving up either one.
 
Let's put this in perspective...

Is it a game? Of course! What else could it possibly be? Some (not all) of the criticisms I'm reading make it sound like people expect it to be a detailed and faithful re-creation of real flight in real airplanes. For a one-time price of $60, and an hourly operating cost of $0.

Well obviously it's never going to feel very close to real flight, barring a multi-hundred-thousand dollar investment in a full-motion environment so you can actually feel the kinesthetics of what you are doing. Given that, the fact that it doesn't stall realistically, or spin realistically, frankly doesn't seem very important. How could it, when you can't feel anything? So... what are you hoping for? :)

Is it perfect? Of course not. Does it have flaws that, in context, Microsoft really should have addressed and hopefully still will? Sure, no argument. Is it a reasonable deal (for people who have any interest in sims in the first place), for 0.06 AMUs? I think so.
 
I groaned a few months ago when I heard MSFS2020 was also coming to the XBox. Something said that can’t be good. Was just hoping it was a dialed down version for game consoles and full version for PC’s.

Hope should never be part of any aviation planning. :eek:
 
Interestingly I see a parallel here between the enthusiasm of the general public and disappointment by professionals in many fields.

For example, back in the 80s lay people loved the show “LA Law” but most attorneys I knew could not watch it. Then there are the medical shows that the public loves but that doctors can’t watch.

Entertainment is different than real life and often abstracted in ways that are entertaining but grating on people who know the real thing.
 
Aviator305 said:
I have never used a model in X-plane that correctly models stalls.
Click to expand...
Do they really claim that the can accurately model stalls or spins? I don't follow them closely but have not seen that claim from the company. The methods they say they use for aero data approximation are not really well suited to high AOA modeling, but there are ways to accommodate that if you know the characteristics you want to represent. That takes a lot of effort for each model you want to...well, model, for little benefit for the average gamer or even pilot.

Nauga,
who cares more about flight dynamics than graphics
 
Right now I'm in the thick of training for my IR, I'm assuming MSFS would be a bad choice given the feedback I've been seeing. I want to be able to use ILS, LOC, VOR, and RNAV navaids and hand fly approaches. Don't care about landing or stalling as long as descents and level flight are fairly realistic. I'd also want to be able to control the weather very specifically. I like to set the weather to be socked in to minimums and add some wind and turbulence to make it more challenging. I don't want to waste time with another sim that I could be using to train. x-plane is about 85% of what I want.
 
Salty said:
Right now I'm in the thick of training for my IR, I'm assuming MSFS would be a bad choice given the feedback I've been seeing. I want to be able to use ILS, LOC, VOR, and RNAV navaids and hand fly approaches. Don't care about landing or stalling as long as descents and level flight are fairly realistic. I'd also want to be able to control the weather very specifically. I like to set the weather to be socked in to minimums and add some wind and turbulence to make it more challenging. I don't want to waste time with another sim that I could be using to train. x-plane is about 85% of what I want.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if MSFS released a patch by year-end to fix the NAV/GPS anomalies pretty quickly as much of a miss as that was and the amount of flak they are catching for it. The missing radio towers and other flight dynamics stuff will probably be a later update. Heck, FSX is just fine for doing what you are talking about and you can adjust weather however you like as well as plan instrument failures.
 
nauga said:
Do they really claim that the can accurately model stalls or spins? I don't follow them closely but have not seen that claim from the company. The methods they say they use for aero data approximation are not really well suited to high AOA modeling, but there are ways to accommodate that if you know the characteristics you want to represent. That takes a lot of effort for each model you want to...well, model, for little benefit for the average gamer or even pilot.

Nauga,
who cares more about flight dynamics than graphics
Click to expand...
Well, if I had a company claiming to be the most realistic for decades, I would try to create a model that did not result in a spin when I am in fact trying to stall. Moreover, the flight models over perform relative to their real life counter parts as evidence for example by well over 1000fpm on a stock 172. So, if you don’t do it right at high AOA and you don’t do it right at takeoff/climb, then you have work to do.

At the end of the day, I use X-plane 10 to practice approaches and am happy with it. I could use FSX to do the same. Either are good enough.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I wouldn't be surprised if MSFS released a patch by year-end to fix the NAV/GPS anomalies pretty quickly as much of a miss as that was and the amount of flak they are catching for it. The missing radio towers and other flight dynamics stuff will probably be a later update. Heck, FSX is just fine for doing what you are talking about and you can adjust weather however you like as well as plan instrument failures.
Click to expand...

$99 “realistic avionics” Christmas package special. LOL
 
What did people expect, software for a decade now has been to release the minimally viable product. MSF2020 perfectly hits that milestone. Wait for the third party developers that cater to study-level aircraft to come out with their products. Their minimally viable product is what many here are looking for. I love that this simulator is getting many people interested in aviation. It was some of the original MSF products that got me into engineering and software development. Lastly, I absolutely love that this simulator brings the beauty of the world to those that are not as fortunate as many on this forum to afford aviation.
 
Salty said:
Right now I'm in the thick of training for my IR, I'm assuming MSFS would be a bad choice given the feedback I've been seeing. I want to be able to use ILS, LOC, VOR, and RNAV navaids and hand fly approaches. Don't care about landing or stalling as long as descents and level flight are fairly realistic. I'd also want to be able to control the weather very specifically. I like to set the weather to be socked in to minimums and add some wind and turbulence to make it more challenging. I don't want to waste time with another sim that I could be using to train. x-plane is about 85% of what I want.
Click to expand...

Same reason I'm sticking with xplane for the moment. For IFR practice you can't beat it and PilotEdge, especially since I was finally able to update the GNS430 database.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
Same reason I'm sticking with xplane for the moment. For IFR practice you can't beat it and PilotEdge, especially since I was finally able to update the GNS430 database.
Click to expand...
How did you update the GNS430 database in Xp11?
 
If you're using the stock GNS you can do it with Navigraph. I have the RealityXP one that came with a ****ty 2009ish database that was pretty much worthless. Someone on here had I think a 2016 database that is good enough for what I want do with it.
 
Aviator305 said:
Well, if I had a company claiming to be the most realistic for decades, I would try to create a model that did not result in a spin when I am in fact trying to stall. Moreover, the flight models over perform relative to their real life counter parts as evidence for example by well over 1000fpm on a stock 172. So, if you don’t do it right at high AOA and you don’t do it right at takeoff/climb, then you have work to do.

At the end of the day, I use X-plane 10 to practice approaches and am happy with it. I could use FSX to do the same. Either are good enough.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I had put a lot into FSX and was very happy with it. But their stock planes got zero use and I was very dependent on the third party world

The unrealistic performance is nothing new. The stock 747 in FSX, even at max gross, would rocket to 41,000 at like 8K ft per minute if you left it firewalled. Definitely not accurate.. the PMDG 747 was far more accurate and realistic

I get what people are saying "it's a game, what you do expect, MVP" etc., but I go back to other examples of game/simulators. There is a littany of FPS combat games, some amazing driving simulators (Forza comes to mind) and many sports games. The graphic in FS2020, while nice, still fall very short, in my opinion, of what these platforms provide.. even an old version of Call of Duty has, in my opinion, better graphics. And their use of OpenStreetMaps and putting an AI on top of it, while "clever" shows through in the overall lack of the graphics when you get close to terrain. Sure, from 10K + it looks stellar. But the closer you get to the ground the worse it looks

I digress. I'm not going to go bonkers with third party adds, peripherals, etc. My time is limited, and when I have a few hours to kill I'd rather be doing the real thing
 
Tantalum said:
Yeah, I had put a lot into FSX and was very happy with it. But their stock planes got zero use and I was very dependent on the third party world

The unrealistic performance is nothing new. The stock 747 in FSX, even at max gross, would rocket to 41,000 at like 8K ft per minute if you left it firewalled. Definitely not accurate.. the PMDG 747 was far more accurate and realistic

I get what people are saying "it's a game, what you do expect, MVP" etc., but I go back to other examples of game/simulators. There is a littany of FPS combat games, some amazing driving simulators (Forza comes to mind) and many sports games. The graphic in FS2020, while nice, still fall very short, in my opinion, of what these platforms provide.. even an old version of Call of Duty has, in my opinion, better graphics. And their use of OpenStreetMaps and putting an AI on top of it, while "clever" shows through in the overall lack of the graphics when you get close to terrain. Sure, from 10K + it looks stellar. But the closer you get to the ground the worse it looks

I digress. I'm not going to go bonkers with third party adds, peripherals, etc. My time is limited, and when I have a few hours to kill I'd rather be doing the real thing
Click to expand...

I agree. No sim is perfect, and each has their own strengths and weaknesses. There’s no need to get fanatical or absolutist about anything.

In the end, I think the real life aviation and sim worlds are much better with FS2020 than without it. If we get 0.01% of FS2020 users to think about flying next time they drive by a GA airport, that would be great for all of us.
 
Aviator305 said:
I agree. No sim is perfect, and each has their own strengths and weaknesses. There’s no need to get fanatical or absolutist about anything.

In the end, I think the real life aviation and sim worlds are much better with FS2020 than without it. If we get 0.01% of FS2020 users to think about flying next time they drive by a GA airport, that would be great for all of us.
Click to expand...
This is very true!
 
Without a joystick or yoke that is capable of strong, variable force feedback, it is impossible to simulate inflight pitch forces and the effects of trim. The way it's done in MSFS and X-Plane is a very poor substitute, that makes it worse than worthless for primary training, and ruins the experience for me.

That said, I do find value in X-Plane as a procedures trainer, for previewing routes and approaches, and for reliving favorite past trips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top