You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Aviation Sports & Hobby

New MS Flight Simulator, part duex

General Aviation, Air Races, Gliding, RC Aircraft, Model Collections, Flight Simulators.
 

DXing 29 Jun 21, 14:09Post
So I now have almost 200 hours in several different aircraft. Pluses and minuses compared to FS2004. I think that FS2004 is probably, at this point, still my favorite from an actual flying experience. I enjoyed the usability of the autopilot functions. One thing I've struggled with on FS2020 is the ability to build an new route in flight as opposed to FS2004 or to even change the approach in the autopilot when a new one is assigned by ATC.

Obviously we are still new in the game for FS2020 but the amount of aircraft they are adding and the rate are pretty slow. I'm not a programmer but couldn't they take a lot of the aircraft from FS2004, both from MS and third party companies, and transfer them to MS2020? How hard is it to make it transition to the new program? On FS2004 I enjoyed 4 third party planes, the Beechcraft Starship, the Mitsubishi MU2, the Beechcraft Turbo Baron 56TC, as well as an experimental Maverick TwinJet. I'd love to see MS or some third party adapt these to MS2020.

Another missing piece, and one I used regularly on MS2004 was the replay feature. Really don't understand the reasoning, if there was any, into not including that feature into the newest version. I used it to critically review my takeoff's and landings to see where I needed to improve. I miss that feature on virtually every flight.

I will give them credit on the graphics. Obviously in the intervening years the CGI industry has evolved by leaps and bounds since 2004 but one thing that is still lacking compared to the 2004 game is things like Mount Rushmore and other landmarks. Once again the simulator is still new and looks, I hope, like it is still being developed but why couldn't they take the 2004 game and use it as the premise to build on and expand?

I continue to be hopeful the game will continue to be supported and continue to evolve as time goes by but I have to confess, after being let down by such items as the windows phone and the surface, MS has a way to go before I won't always be waiting for the other shoe to drop and the product to be no longer supported.
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
Lucas (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 29 Jun 21, 14:21Post
The lack of a replay feature is a major miss for me. OTOH, I love how easy it is to install addons.
ShyFlyer (Founding Member) 29 Jun 21, 15:46Post
I've got about 300hrs so far and while I am still quite impressed with it, it is very frustrating (nearly infuriating) how much work it still needs.

Built in ATC is an absolute joke. Previous versions of the sim had a better version, though still with issues. Some things that should be easy to correct, such as "Live Traffic" aircraft constantly being told to descend and maintain 10000 feet, have yet to be addressed. I believe this to be a conscious decision by ASOBO. They don't want to take the time to do it.

The Garmin avionics still need a lot of work. Thankfully, the team as brought on Working Title to fix this. Working Title quickly, and distributed for free, a mod for the avionics that is quite remarkable. Once again, ASOBO made a decision to "half-ass" the avionics.

Real Weather still needs help. Probably because MeteoBlue won't acknowledge that their system for global weather is ill suited for the task.

Nothing ticks me off more than people who have the ability to do a job right the first time making a conscious, deliberate decision to "half-ass" something.


DXing wrote:...the amount of aircraft they are adding and the rate are pretty slow.

I've noted this as well. I'm not sure if it's because the community expects much higher quality than in the past or because it's much harder to create aircraft for the new version. I have read that some of the commercial developers have opted to start from scratch rather than port over aircraft from older versions.

I'm also surprised there hasn't been a lot more livery options for the default aircraft. Those came out within days of the sim dropping, so I expected there to by so many more by now. It was nice to see some of the classic fictitious airline liveries from the past sims make their way back to the sim.

Lucas wrote:I love how easy it is to install addons.

That is very welcome! So far, I've only installed the Garmin stuff from Working Title, but I'm still blown away by how easy it is to install and remove. Well, easy once you find the community folder.
Let's go Brandon
ShyFlyer (Founding Member) 20 Sep 21, 15:18Post
I've been using this for about a year now. The more things [get updated], the more they stay the same.

It's great that Microsoft/Asobo continues to support the sim. What's not great is that a year into it, they continue to release updates that are essentially one step forward, one step back. I was one of those users who, when trying to download the last major update, discovered that one must have the Xbox App installed on their PC. It doesn't have to be running, it just has to be installed. Apparently, The Microsoft Store won't give you the update unless it sees that this app is installed.

Working Title's first contribution as an official part of the team, the Garmin G1000NXi package, is very nice. It's not quite as good as their standalone mod, yet.

The update broke my favorite aircraft, the TBM930. Asobo overcomplicated the start procedure and end users had to experiment to re-learn how to do it. They also broke the CRTL+E method for starting the engines, which is what I prefer to use. This issue has not been even mentioned by the development team.

I'm early awaiting X-Plane 12. Certainly they're watching how Microsoft/Asobo are flailing about and taking detailed notes.
Let's go Brandon
DXing 21 Sep 21, 12:51Post
ShyFlyer wrote:
The update broke my favorite aircraft, the TBM930. Asobo overcomplicated the start procedure and end users had to experiment to re-learn how to do it. They also broke the CRTL+E method for starting the engines, which is what I prefer to use. This issue has not been even mentioned by the development team.


And here I thought it was just me as usual. What is the new start procedure? I can get the engine started but that's as far as it goes, getting the throttle to advance has escaped me. I finally started using the checklist page and selecting "auto complete" as the way to get things going but that's a letdown. Thanks and congrats in advance if you've solved it.
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
miamiair (netAirspace FAA) 21 Sep 21, 13:12Post
My son has been playing with it, but we suspended his ability due to the home remodeling. Now it is back, but the Shadow PC I use to run it went from 12/month to 30/month.
And let's get one thing straight. There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician; the other is an artist in love with flight. — E. B. Jeppesen
ShyFlyer (Founding Member) 21 Sep 21, 16:30Post
DXing wrote:What is the new start procedure?

It's in the official forum somewhere. I tried to find it but not having a good morning it seems. Of the top of my head, I think it involves left-clicking the throttle.

I haven't flown the TBM since Asobo broke it, especially since they have yet to acknowledge that they broke it. I spend all my flying time with the Caravan. I try the King Air once in a while but the avionics are still way wrong.

One thing that I forgot to mention was that, a year in, the small airport next to DEN, namely the "Colorado Air & Space Port - CFO" (ugh, so stupid) is still incorrectly identified. In sim, it's referred to as Front Range - FTG. It wouldn't be such a big deal to me since I hate the new name and designator, but (at least last I checked) there are no instrument procedures available. We're led to believe that the sim incorporates the latest AIRAC info. Could explain why the sim FTG doesn't have any instrument approaches. What is unexplained is why it's still using the old name/code since the change to the real airport happened long before the sim was even publicly announced.
Let's go Brandon
DXing 21 Sep 21, 17:20Post
ShyFlyer wrote: I try the King Air once in a while but the avionics are still way wrong.

I purchased the King Air C90GTX and it was a struggle to figure out the avionics as well as the autopilot. You almost always have to hand fly the SID or you get a "continuity disconnect" error on the FMS which then trashes the autopilot when FMS is selected. I've had no luck trying to delete and move to the next leg which would theoretically get things back on track. So in preplanning I've been eliminating the SID and going direct to the first enroute fix if I want an IFR flight plan. Very cumbersome.

Used the left click on the Daher TBM throttle and sure enough that did the trick. Thanks much for that.
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
DXing 24 Sep 21, 19:41Post
Piper Arrow was updated and now on takeoff the aircraft rolls uncontrollably to the right or left and crashes. No amount of trim can correct it. It was noted in the forum so hopefully it gets corrected. I like that plane.
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
miamiair (netAirspace FAA) 27 Sep 21, 13:58Post
Sounds like FS is going to hell in a hand basket.
And let's get one thing straight. There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician; the other is an artist in love with flight. — E. B. Jeppesen
ShyFlyer (Founding Member) 27 Sep 21, 18:20Post
It's because they've spent too much time and effort on visuals and not the core.
Let's go Brandon
DXing 28 Sep 21, 10:17Post
The Piper Arrow's problem of rolling uncontrollably just after takeoff seems to be solved. Squeaky wheel evidently does get some grease. I noticed that the reviews for the Beechcraft C90 continue to fall. Not surprising IMO given the FMS discontinuity issues leading to autopilot disconnects.

shyflyer wrote:Built in ATC is an absolute joke. Previous versions of the sim had a better version, though still with issues. Some things that should be easy to correct, such as "Live Traffic" aircraft constantly being told to descend and maintain 10000 feet, have yet to be addressed. I believe this to be a conscious decision by ASOBO. They don't want to take the time to do it.


Don't think I was conscious of this before you mentioned it but as I've gotten more comfortable with flying the airplanes it's become more so. There's a bug that crops up intermittently where ATC keeps telling you to ascend/descend to the last assigned level, even though you are there. Happens at all altitudes, even checking the latest altimeter setting below FL180 doesn't help. I've found going to +/- 200 feet of the assigned level usually, but not always, fixes that.

Also, ATC's profligate issuance of "cleared to land" on a runway requiring a landing with a greater than 10kt tailwind is annoying.

I may try flying into LA Palma Airport today just to see how FS handles it.
What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
DXing 09 Jun 22, 14:18Post
I've tried some of the top gun challenges. Did pretty well on low level flight but the carrier landing has me stumped. Best I've been able to score is 1300. But only 1 successful landing in every 4 attempts. Saw this video, maybe my equipment isn't up to snuff because all is well until short final and then it seems like it all goes to hell.

What's the point of an open door policy if inside the open door sits a closed mind?
Lucas (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 09 Jun 22, 21:37Post
It's funny how ATC switches you to tower so that we can clear for you for the RNAV. Just like real life!
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT