Me too. As a starter for ten, try following the SS113 and E90 highways west along the north coast towards Cefalu and everywhere they cross a valley you should find something to try. 
“Works well” can be a bit subjective. I’m guessing that might be your answer. 
FS 2020 “works well” for me too…until I ask it to do something it doesn’t do so well (but should, IMO) like handle multiple monitors/views correct from the start. 
I am just going to take a guess here, but I will bet I had pretty close to 1 million NM under my wings before I even got into a cockpit that even had an autopilot. We user to call it “flying”. Even after I had a nice Sperry in the cockpit with me, about the only time it worked as advertised was when the AME was trying to clear a snag in the log.
Never, since the beginning of the Microsoft series of flight simulators, did we have an autopilot in a default bird that could accomplish much beyond wings level with anything approaching reliability. Anyone that remembers any of those previous versions working “out of the box”, remembers wrong.
Other than a hard bank bug, that was fixed, and a lot of folks not following SOP for autopilot engagement, the current crop of aircraft do a pretty good job. A working FMS!! are you kidding! trust me when I tell you that it sure beats a picture of one between the seats.
1 Like
I was just referring to FSX.
I seem to recall the autopilots in both FS9 and FSX working pretty flawlessly.
Do you recall how well the default autopilot followed the FMS flightplan? Or the VNAV function of the default 747?
I’ve never had any sort of problems with the default autopilot in either FS9 or FSX. As for the VNAV function, that is way more complex than simple autopilot functions. You can’t simply bundle those two together.
My point was that the complex modes did not exist on the default aircraft in FS9/FSX. The systems that are available in MSFS default aircraft exceed what was previously offered. Not trying to get into an argument over what capabilities qualify for discussion. Simply that what has been included in default aircraft in previous versions did not include full functionality either, and in most cases did not function the same as the real world systems.
eg: In FSX the autopilot allowed for turning on AP to hold altitude while continuing to control heading. Without a CWS option this function was incorrect. If heading mode is not active when AP is engaged, wing leveling mode is on by default and can only be disengaged with CWS. Therefore, incorrect modelling.
2 Likes
But that’s not what you said at all. What you said is:
You’re implying that the autopilot in previous version of flight sim was so utterly broken, nothing other than wings level would work. That is in no way, shape, or form remotely similar to:
This last point is entirely valid for FS2020 too, btw. There is nothing in default FS2020 that includes full functionality or functions the same as the real world system.
This is not my understanding of the FSX autopilot, at least not exactly like this.
In FSX the autopilot allowed… doesn’t mean it only works this way only either. Being able to decouple altitude hold from any other mode and let the pilot flying heading was probably not meant for using it this way. Instead, it was most likely meant to let 3rd parties implementing an autopilot system using default ALT A/P logic inside the sim while overriding the LAT mode with for example direct control on the ailerons.
Besides, this is not a default behaviour, instead, it is only how most default aircraft could have been configured. But this is deactivable:
Aircraft Configuration Files | Microsoft Learn
See [autopilot] section
| Property | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| default_pitch_mode | This determines the default pitch mode when the autopilot logic is turned on. 0 = None 1 = Pitch Hold (current pitch angle) 2 = Altitude Hold (current altitude) If no value is set, Pitch Hold will be the default. | |
| default_bank_mode | This determines the default bank mode when the autopilot logic is turned on. 0 = None 1 = Wing Level Hold 2 = Heading Hold (current heading). If no value is set, Wing Level Hold will be the default. | Douglas DC-3( default_bank_mode=2 ) |
| use_no_default_pitch | Setting this flag to 1 will cause the default pitch mode to be “None”. It will actually set the variable default_pitch_mode to zero, so that there is no default pitch mode when the autopilot logic is activated. The preferred method is to tset the default_pitch_mode directly. | |
| use_no_default_bank | Setting this flag to 1 will cause the default bank mode to be “None”. It will actually set the variable default_bank_mode to zero, so that there is no default bank mode when the autopilot logic is activated. The preferred method is to tset the default_bank_mode directly. |
Well explained and correct.
@CristiNeagu @CptLucky8
We are getting into interpretation and semantics over a non issue. The question was, “Are player’s asking too much?”.
To clear the murk a bit, I hope, the point I was trying to make was that there is a long tradition of default aircraft with very limited functionality. Usually far less functionality than the default aircraft we have in the latest offering. If I would like to fly from Vancouver to Cuba in the 747, I can assemble a flight plan with all the required departure, enroute and arrival components. I can let the GPS or LNAV handle the navigation and fly any number of available approaches on arrival. This amount of function and detail was unavailable in any of the default aircraft previously. Not just because of limited avionics but because the default navdata was lacking.
For the position we were in “out of the box” we were leaps and bounds ahead of the predecessors not just in graphics but in overall usability. The fact that we want more is to be expected because the default aircraft are still only rudimentary compared to what is available for FSX, as an example, when MSFS was released. It took a while for the old sims to develop the SDK that allowed the detailed functions we ended up with and I am sure we will get ther eventually with this one too.
Are we asking too much? Of course we are. That is what we do. And when we get what we want?
“Thank-you, guv’ner. May I have some more?”
3 Likes
@willisxdc you are most likely right it is pointless, though my understanding of the discussion subject was “too much” in the sense of “not realistic” (i.e. weird requests), not in the sense of “more” (i.e. missing features).
2 Likes
SAKISAPPOLON: I’ve been watching all kinds of topics and sometimes i can’t help myself from laughing too much from some “weird” demands that players have from the sim.
Maybe you are a bit harsh. From what I have read, many wishes but more importantly complaints come from folks who dont seem the have the first notion of the complexity or what is actually being produced. They often seem to treat MSFS like they would any ordinary ‘shoot them up’ game or indeed, (heaven help us) with Google Earth.
Many long standing simmers are I think overlooking that there are now lots of new users who just ‘want to play a game’ rather than involve themselves in the actual science and skill of flying.
I recently asked someone how they would do a VOR/DME to VOR/DME flightplan.
I got blank stares.
So there are two groups of users now: on the one hand established simmers, the ones MS is counting on I think for meaningful contributions and Game Players. The wishes and requirements of both are vastly different. MS decided for good sensible commercial reasons to market the Simulator as a ‘Game’.
However, it isnt. Thats the basic underlying cause of many misunderstandings and ‘wishes’.
So be it.
1 Like
But here’s the problem. If Asobo starts enabling developers to bring in more realism, and they themselves work on increasing the realism of the simulation core, those same users will still be able to just play a game, if that’s what they want. They’ll be able to use any of the default aircraft and any of a multitude of addons to do whatever goofy stunts they may like. And that’s fine. But if Asobo focuses only on those users who just want to play a game, the simmers cannot just get on with their simming. They cannot get accurate addons if the basic requirements third party developers have are simply not there.
So you can cater to simmers while gamers can simply get on with it, but you can’t just cater to gamers because simmers will not be able to get on with anything. Obviously, some balance has to be found.
The problem is that there is a very vocal group of users that not only do not want to acknowledge this division, but they consider “gamer” to be a pejorative, and they become toxic and aggressive towards anyone who might suggest otherwise. (Just you wait for the replies to this post.) As i have said in other topics, it is vitally important for the good of the community to understand that not all people play this game in a similar manner, and everyone is looking for different things. Only by doing that can we understand that a compromise must be reached within the community. Everyone needs to understand that asking for more POIs and more bridges to fly under is just as important as asking for study level addons, and vice-versa.
2 Likes
your reference to there needing to be a balance, hits it on the head.
But its not just a content balance. IF what is delivered is to be ultra realistic and super smooth to even satisfy the FPS obsessed, then the thing wont run on even a top end PC. It would probably require huge hardware investments at home.
Afterall, look at the professional flight training simulators, the focus there is on the realism of the behaviour of the plane the reaction to controls etc. The ‘outside world’ is demonstrably computer generated and not that realistic at times.
So even they reach a compromise. But it seems to me that the ‘gamers’ expect ultra realism running on their average home PCs.
That aint going to happen. Experienced simmers understand this. Gamers dont.
So in that sense, back to the original question, some folks just do expect too much at times.
1 Like
Not true. Very high realism levels have already been achieved on FSX and P3D. It doesn’t require massive processing power. It just requires a more open API.
1 Like
The reason professional training sims don’t have a shiny world is not for performance reasons, but rather ‘why waste money on the looks of the world when you don’t need it to learn to fly’. 
2 Likes
Do you think that a company would care for some dozens of simmers or some millions of gamers who think they can fly above their exact girlfriends house to see if she cheats them ? 
Yep; works well for me, a non pilot doing short hops around his own neighborhood GA VFR. For a real pilot that knows better probably not so much.
correct. You have made my point. realism comes at a cost.
1 Like