I’ll see if I can find adjustments for that but I think they are set up correctly. I also have to qualify my criticism, (if taken that way). I usually fly only turboprop singles and twins, and corporate jets in the sims. The 172, Bonanza, or other piston singles in FSMS, may fly better than but I would have no idea because I never fly them. So my comments apply only to the Caravan, CJ4, TBM and King Air and now the Kodiak. The Kodiak works very well but still lacks the feel and feedback I like when I fly it in X-Plane. Those of you who don’t fly X-Plane may never miss it and that’s fine. It could also be what I’m used to but there is no doubt the planes are easier to fly in MSFS in my experience. I’m looking forward to Milviz’s C310, (the first piston twin I’d like to fly again), and eventually, the King Air 350 which is one of my favorite planes in X-Plane, (although not Milviz but still excellent).
Well, that is also the issue with simple models in the sims. The differences in a 172 and a Mooney are not as apparent as they would be with a top-quality “study level” versions. I remember going from a 172 to a 182 and then to a 210, the difference was huge to me when I was a low-time pilot. The extra 50HP and a few hundred pounds felt like it was so much faster and twice as heavy on the controls at each step. This is why the FAA requires a high-performance complex endorsement before you can step up and legally fly those, (including a Mooney).
I take it you’ve never seen what A2A, SimCoders or Airfoillabs aircraft are capable of. I have GA aircraft from all of them and they’re just as good (if not better) than some of the meta study-level commercial aircraft. It wouldn’t surprise me if many who only fly study-level commercial aircraft hop in a GA study-level aircraft and have issues with it. Flooding engines, fouling plugs, damaging avionics, ect, ect. I’m sure many would do it. You need to learn how to do things properly, this isn’t just applicable to commercial study-level aircraft.
In theory if you can start the engine(s) you can fly it is true but in reality, what you don’t know can kill you .
As Sky Steve posted a high performance - complex endorsement is a FAA requirement not a suggestion.
Retractable gear, constant speed prop and 200 hp engines require knowledge and skill to keep you safe. Small piston twins without counter rotating props can be (are ) deadly if mishandled in an engine out sittuation. AS airplane move up in complexity they require the pilot to have a greater knowledge of
systems and procedures .
Take a look at SimCoders, I have some of their packs for Carenado aircraft and it’s like an entire new aircraft, you wouldn’t think Carenado had any part in it. I mean what peeps say is quite true, the 3D modeling work with Carenado aircraft (especially with their more recent addons) is very, very good but all else leaves a lot to be desired.
Hi TuftedCow74848
Regarding the challenges, when they mention Ground Roll it doesn’t mean distance travelled forward after touchdown, it’s the distance you move left or right of the centreline of the runway from your initial touch down point you come to a halt. I think you could go to the last foot of the runway and if your central you would get a good score.
( Perfect touchdown must be on the BlueCross inside the Blue Square)
Not in those screenshots you haven’t, they hardly quaify for medium in MSFS
It is not possible to compare these arcade F-16 and arcade Tomcat and whatever other jets with no functional systems at all and fantasy cockpit button layout are with absolute phantastic top-notch DCS jets.
Study level in Flight Sim 20 are only PMDG (and very likely of course Fenix too) - but not these available arcade jets. Forget these - they barely resemble a real F-16 and Tomcats etc…
Go for the good quality study-level airplanes only: PMDG Fenix Carenado and some others. 
That aircraft is a gem. I wouldn’t have told them about it, though. It’s fun watching someone be salty.
On another note, it’s tiring hearing the same couple of devs get put on a pedestal. Pmdg recycles the same aircraft for every sim, so one would hope they have the DC-6 down by now. Carenado needs to tighten up their shot group before they are used as a measurement for anything.
As for DCS, I like watching the reenactments, but the ground textures look like ps1 and I’m not really studying to become a fighter pilot like some here are. I think the DC & SC design aircraft do so well because they’re marketed to aviation enthusiasts who want an authentic feel, but aren’t hung up by the fact they missed their opportunity to join the Air Force.
The knowledge transferred over from DCS to real life is the equivalent of taking someone who plays MotoGP and putting them on a liter bike without ever having actually been near a motorcycle. Their ego would get checked very quickly.
I think they already agreed that they are the Azure specialists, and they are using FSX as the core sim engine.
It will take a long time for them to re-code all the elements of FSX to run optimally in Azure.
They are certainly capable, just watch the lift element section of their latest twitch Q & A, although this is frighteningly similar to Austins method…
What? What do you mean by Azure specialists? What do you mean by “run in Azure”? The core of the sim runs on you PC. Sure, some things are downloaded - like terrain textures, terrain models and weather, but I wouldn’t say the sim “runs in Azure”. Far from it.
They started with the FSX code as reference, but it’s a completely new sim. They have just copied some parts over. Flight model is completely new, graphics engine is new, weather engine is new, … They’re definitely very skilled game developers. Azure has nothing to do with it. I’m sure they could have used AWS or GC if they wanted to.
I think we might all be surprised by just how much FSX code was lifted. It has come up a number of times during Dev. Q&A’s. But they are improving on things.
In simple terms the project is basically start with what existed, throw it in Asobo’s engine and change things as they go. Familiar faces explaining this back in 2019…
That’d be one greasy airline to resort to hiring x-plane pilots. At best you may get a few PPL holders(the ones who land their cessnas on the highway) and a guy or two who flew commercial in the 60s.
It all makes sense now. Good find
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.