So you think Bing maps looks better than Google Earth VR, do you? If all FS 2020 is being used for is a gawking interface for the planet (which seems to be a popular FS 2020 activity) Google Earth VR absolutely destroys FS 2020 in every way except for the price.
“a lot of areas in the world don’t have 3D even in Google maps”
As if Bing has the planet covered. 
Edit:
And please direct me to where on the planet Google Earth VR is not shown in 3D? I’ve yet to find such a place.
I can say the exact same thing to you. Please point out a similar game with graphics like FS2020 where we pariahs should take our study level addons.
You are. You are assuming that only the things you consider to be important can possibly improve the game, whilst any calls for better realism have no value.
So why don’t you play any other game?
This is the kind of disconnect i’ve mentioned so many times. People think that only the things they want have any sort of importance, and nothing else matters. Just because you don’t understand the benefits brought in by increased realism, it doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
And another thing i have been saying is that i happen to agree with you on some topics. Yes, I believe Asobo should focus on graphics, on the core engine, on multiplayer, on the weather, etc. But I also believe that they should permit other developers to bring more realism to the sim. Right now they are seemingly blocking such efforts by enforcing a strict and limited sandbox. I would have thought that people like you would be right up there with those of us wishing for more realism, asking Asobo to open up the API to third parties so that Asobo can better focus on the things you find important.
What on earth are you talking about? I play lots of other games, but for flying this one does what I need it to do. Xplane is vapid, Prepar3D is just FSX and FSX is older than God.
I’m not sure what “people like me” means. Realism is highly subjective. I’m not a pilot so I can’t tell if anything is realistic or not, but neither can an actual pilot since the flight characteristics of any plane are affected by so many parameters. I imagine that some addons are just selling you a bill of goods, it’s realistic because they and the people they choose to ask and promote their thing state that it is realistic. In the end, how do we know. I do this for fun and since this game is fun (when it works) then I need the smaller things like better UI, better VR support, and a few new toys to play with every so often.
I am a real pilot : I have almost 500 hours on a real Pipistrel (the Virus, not the Virus SW like in the game) and I can tell you, if you accept that the planes in MSFS are a bit different, like new version or special version, it feels pretty realistic. The tittle of this thread is “are players asking too much ?” and although I think it is normal to ask for more and also that this sim improves, I think yes some are asking too much in the way that they are never happy. I pitty them ! I have great joys with this sim. I am just finishing a round the world trip with the Pipistrel, Xcub and TBM and it was wonder from the start to the finish. I am just amazed at what we can do now with software. Off course I want it to improve and also bugs don’t stay there to long (although for me it has been pretty bug free from the begining, I think most of the time the bugs come from the user’s system) and I am sure it will improve as we can sense that MS and Asobo are working for it.
People comparing MAPS sightseing with a Flight Simulator WITH AEROPLANES.
Lots of people are using FS2020 exactly for that. What’s so bad about that?
this is truly good news to all those folks who still have FSX and P3D on their machines and believe that the fligjht dynamics in those platforms is inferior to the one in FS2020.
I am of course referring to the dynamics as explained in the Discovery Presentation
I think it would be a great service to all if you explained how that type of flight dynamic can be achieved in those older platforms.
I assume of course that, as you say, its a matter of correct configuration and not one of spending money.
Regardless of asking to much, I dont think it is too much to ask for:
Please fix the flight planner, and the USR/USER way points. This is one of the reasons I still go back to Xplane, my flight plan is left intact and why the CRJ does not use the default planner. Sadly it still affects the A32NX until they do their own, its garbage, it needs fixing.
Please fix the Auto Pilot, its way better but has serious issues, it messes up approaches so bad at times.
These 2 things despite the fantastic add-ons I have for Xplane, more money invested in it than should be would make me MSFS exclusive, but as it stands I just cant take the sim seriously. I should not have to be watching the waypoints like a hawk near the start of an approach because the plane will try go 180 on me and back to some random way point, I should be able to file plan and fly it, being able to precisely follow the plan and STAR as I can in Xplane, it has nothing to do with Flight Models, nothing to do with Xplane VS MSFS, it is just not right in MSFS and it really needs fixing.
I understand the AP cant do VNAV so great, thats fine, you hardly ever get to do a fully managed descend in the real world so I am told where the plane just files down hitting all the ALT/SPEED restirctions as per the FMC/STAR but what is annoying is when it gets to the start of the approach and it just goes wild, I should not have to be going to HDG mode or even worrying about it, I should be following the plan or ATC…It really annoys me. Its takes what is fast becoming an amazing sim maybe the best and makes it trash IMHO its a basic thing why did they do this!
Interestingly, the current crop of users seem to forget that the Microsoft Flight Simulator family of software is one of the longest running computer “games” out there. Since the first FS an entire industry of developers have grown from grass roots to companies that have been feeding their employees families for years.
This “minority”, as you refer to it, has been the catalyst and consumer base for companies like ORBX and PMDG and A2A, not to forget the hundreds of smaller companies that have been very successful and have created a niche, not only in commercial development but also in the proprietary aviation industry building and developing professional simulators. Without that minority, those companies would not exist. Likely the Microsoft Flight Simulator series would have died with 2002 not grown to 2020.
Why would MS want to replicate an existing platform? Because that is what they have been doing since day one. Microsoft Windows did not start out as Windows 10. Microsoft Office did not start out as a cloud based industry standard. These series of titles all began as a rudimentary platform that filled a need, perceived need maybe, but a need of the few that grew to become standards that many can’t live without. When I started learning C as a programming language, I couldn’t believe it would ever catch on. Wrong.
When I first took to the air from Miegs Field the last thing I thought of was a need to fly from Chicago to LA in a fully modelled 747. Wrong again. The more I flew, the more places I wanted to go, but the platform would not allow it. Now I routinely fly from Vancouver, BC to Luperon International in the Dominican Republic. I really miss being able to do that in an accurate recreation of my favorite 737. Will I pour more money into PMDG’s pockets? 100% I will. Beyond the $120 or so that you spent on the default simulator, how many families will benefit from your ongoing support?
The minority you speak of is the life blood of an entire industry. They will continue to help developers make car payments and make Microsoft another billion dollars. The minority will still be flying when 2030 rolls around and we are looking to the next version to supplant MSFS 2020. The “majority” will likely have long since tired of the precision and attention to detail that is REAL aviation. The Flight Simulator series has never been able to hold the interest of fighter jocks and barn stormers. DCS saw that and started a new world for the adrenalin junkies. The minority just keeps going through their checklists and missing supper calls from the family because, well, that is what pilots are really like. Boring, dedicated professionals that will always demand the most accuracy and detail that our pals at A2A can provide.
‘Runs on rails’ is a very different criticism than the single- / multi-point argument. It’s a case of understanding what causes the ‘running on rails’ and then developng for that. Unfortunately, it’s not a quick ‘one adjustment fixes everything’, it will not replicate the multi-point dynamics in the current sim but when you understand it, it opens up some opportunities. The short version:
First - the weather. In the previous sims, the wind and turbulence were massively overdone. Turn them down to around 12 - 15%. That may sound counter-intuitive, but it’s a case of needing both sides to the coin adjusted.
Secondly - the flight model. This is on an aircraft by aircraft basis, and unfortunately will involve some research to find aircraft that were built using correct levels of aerodynamic coefficients. The bulk of aircraft for the previous sims, especially the default aircraft, were over-damped. I don’t know which came first, the overdamping or the overblown weather, but presumably one was a reaction to the other.
The combination of over-damped controls and overblown weather resulted in the overly-solid feel those sims were known for.
There are several flight dynamics developers who developed using the realistic coefficients / decreased weather method, taking accurate figures where available or calculating them themselves if necessary. Generally look for support forum posts where the end-user complains that their aircraft cannot possibly be realistic because it’s just been tipped on its back while airborne 
(they haven’t adjusted the weather!) It is worth a look if you still have those sims installed.
The weather systems for those sims are not as good as the one in MSFS, and obviously we are stuck with the ‘single point’ effect in them, but there is a much less solid feel when flying in any weather from a gentle breeze upwards.
Hear, hear, very well said.
This statement is not only true, but is frightening for its current relevance. Asobo admitted to turning down the turbulence model because they believed the uninitiated would think it was overdone. I have been in a 172 that was slammed by some of the worst turbulence I ever encountered in years of flying. Was as close to what I refer to as the “death clap” as I ever want to be.
(Death Clap - G-load exceeding the structure of the aircraft resulting in the failure of one or both wing attachments. Raise your hands straight above your head and clap your hands. Now picture your wings…)
In light GA aircraft it is not uncommon to encounter turbulence that results in descent rates that exceed the performance climb capabilities of the aircraft, or conversely, climb rates that would require dive speeds in excessive of design limits to maintain your altitude. The turbulence presented in MSFS currently resembles a normal ‘smooth’ day in the air in most cases. I have flown over mountains in strong wind conditions that have challenged the autopilot to the point where I shut it of to maintain control. Was still way below what I would expect but I could imagine a bunch of new simmers saying it was stupid or a bug because the autopilot was going from overspeed to stall in seconds.
Asking for too much? I just want what the math says is real, not what a non pilot thinks “feels” right.
The weird thing is that they could just throw some sliders at it. Plane stability: easy to realistic. Turbulence: easy to realistic. Up and down drafts: easy to realistic. And everyone would be happy.
That is quite the speech. Orbx make scenery and airports, and not at all well I should say in my experience. PMDG have been hawking the same addons for more than a decade, I bought one back in the day, it worked only intermittently if at all and PMDG had the temerity to demand more money from me after I wanted to download the product I bought again. Charming folks.
The serious flight sim community is not a legion, it’s just a small group of enthusiasts, you may do as you please, I could care less but this is not your community, it’s not your simulator or your game, your sentimentality not withstanding. The opening question was simple, are people asking too much of this thing, which they are. You can demand all you want but I will wager, and I don’t wager, that you won’t get what you want.
One final point, your Microsoft analogy is really quite poor.
lol, you guys are asking WAYYYY too much, why doesn’t anyone understand that computer programs are hard and it’s not just a few lines that need fixing for each of your first world problems… ‘the terrain is 2 feet off here’, ‘why isn’t the weather loading up within 2 seconds?’
I think there are genuine complaints to be made about FS2020 but the reality is that a few performance tweaks, faster loading times and a better UI with some serious quality of life improvements for players is really all it needs in the short term.
In the course of this discussion I have come to the conclusion that you have not enjoyed much in the way of flight simulator improvements over the years. I get the feeling that Microsoft could have stopped at Windows 3.1 because it encompassed all the functionality that you needed. ORBX and PMDG have survived in spite of your obvious disdain for their abilities and I expect they will continue to be supported by the unnecessary minority.
Although, in your opinion, it seems it may be a waste of our time, I will wager that the flight simulator hobbyists, (we are NOT all hardcore, just dedicated), will continue to ask for too much until we have a sim that we can call our own.
all sounds a bit ‘make do’ to me.
If after all that the plane still behaves as if it hangs on a single piece of string, then indeed it doesnt come close to MSFS.
Sure, some may see it as an improvement and I fully understand that some developers want users to go on buying add ons for these old systems, but lets not pretend they come anywhere close to MSFS in sophistication, realism and sheer brilliance of execution as a piece of software.
But yes, you can frig around with the settings in these old simulators, and we have all done that, read the book, bought the T Shirt.
In fact, if we hadnt done that and kept the Simming industry alive all these years, MSFS probably wouldnt exist. But it was always smoke and mirrors in the end.
Heaven knows how much money was spend buying add ons to keep things going, but in the end it got us MSFS.
Yes, computer games are hard and need work, last week it was running great for 3 nights flying with no probs.
TODAY, crashed to desktop 3 times during bootup ( considering it was running fine yesterday for 2-3 hours when I last shut it down).
The only thing I could do was take the only Item out of my Community folder FBW and then it managed to boot up and run. ( could be just a coincidence though)
From shut-down yesterday, to start-up today, NOTHING altered … are we asking too much for a program that works?
P.S. Still not running right will have to start all over again tomorrow.
Is it too much to ask for a decent update process? I was getting all sorts of errors trying to run MSFS today. It wasn’t until I came here that I realised a new update was released and even then I had to restart the MS Store download after it errored out. It’s just so janky. Just give me a stable program at least. I can’t enjoy myself when I am always in fear that some new error will appear whenever I try to start MSFS.
Edit: And why is my Steam login appearing when I start MSFS. I bought through the MS Store not Steam.