Discussion: February 4th, 2021 Development Update

Probably because you can’t see the difference between being able to entirely focus on a tiny single project and a having to manage a complete complex flight sim? dunno.

If it was that easy, the community modders would have built the flight sim of your dreams years and years ago.


You are entitled to call it whatever you want, be it entertainment product or serious simulation,

That was literally DC Simulations’ own classification in the comments under one of the reviews I have read. I think they know best what they want their product to be classified as. It could of course have been an imposter, but the way they defended their work lets me believe it was genuine. I wish DC Simulations all the best with their product. Early reviews were not exactly ecstatic, however.

The physics engine, as well as literally almost everything else in MSFS, is subject to constant change,

That is true. I never implied otherwise. My question was more or less, whether those devs fudged their supersonic flight dynamics or if the engine supports it natively, which does not seem to be the case yet.

If the former, the term “supersonic support” is a little vague and misleading. But I guess that is a matter of semantics and expectations. Just like what the distinction between a simmer and a gamer is. I guess not every gamer is a simmer, but every simmer is a gamer.

Until and If any version of FS2020 gets approved by the FAA and other regulatory bodies as part of an ATD, we can call it a game, because that is what it is.

I totally agree with you on the priorities. My slightly snarky comment regarding the SR-71 was not a jab at Asobo, if this is what it seemed like to you. It was directed at certain developers, advertising in what I would consider a grey area because supersonic flight is not really a thing in the sim yet.

Thank you for the QoL video link, much appreciated :slight_smile:

They found a way to go supersonic, per the developers’ notes.

100% correct

It’s not just about going supersonic but also the proper simulation of supersonic airflow or transonic effects like flow separation. Airfoils are shaped differently if they are designed to handle supersonic speeds and have peculiar physics that should be rendered accurately. At least that is what I want. :grin:

This is grossly and absolutely inaccurate and false.

Captain Edilberto Valdez, a former airline pilot at United Airlines, Champion Air and Skywest Airlines who has held various positions in the aviation industry (including line check airmen, Boeing 727 training director), got a B.Sc degree from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and taught corporate, military and NASA test pilots, uses Microsoft Flight Simulator X (which, according to your own incorrect logic is a “game”, since no part of it is FAA approved and no such approval/license for FSX exists) at his flight simulator classes to teach his private pilot students at Cypress College in Southern California, where he is also the assistant professor of Aviation.

Rod Machado, another very popular flight instructor, author and aviation speaker, himself visited Captain Ed back in 2014 at Cypress College to speak with his students, learn about their success rate (which is quite good) and witness how these simulators driven solely by Microsoft Flight Simulator X actually work.

An article about Rod’s experience and meeting with Captain Ed was published by AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots’ Association) even, in case you think I’m making this up:


Captain Ed in his classes also uses ATDs and BATDs assembled by Elite Simulations (Elite have been doing this since 1987) and certified by FAA, CAA and EASA. The following is how developers at Elite Simulations address Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (spoiler: They don’t call it a “game”):

Image source: Plugins / Drivers & Software updates | ELITE Simulations Solutions AG (flyelite.ch)

Image source: New ELITE product line ALTURA | ELITE Simulations Solutions AG (flyelite.ch)

Last but not the least, Prepar3D, another Microsoft (ESP) product and a copy-paste fork of your “game” Microsoft Flight Simulator X, has been in use worldwide for more than 10 years by various air forces for solely professional flight training purposes.

Also worthy of mention that the legacy, FSX ESP-based flight model is already included in MSFS 2020 (if a developer wants to use it for whatever reason), and another professional flight simulator development group Pro-sim (whose products are used in professional airliner training) have already released their A320 for your “game” MSFS 2020:

You can learn more about Prosim and their customers here: Homepage - ProSim Aviation Research (prosim-ar.com)

Nevertheless, I sincerely hope calling Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 a “game” makes you happy and helps you sleep better at night :slight_smile:



Are you saying that the team that works on the airports or the team that works on aircraft all have to manage the whole msfs project? You mean there is no management structure?

I thought you said msfs had separate (tiny) teams to focus on different aspects?

Yes you did.

You cant have it both ways. Its very important to not make up conflicting excuses where none are justified.

I know and understand there is a balance for default aircraft or any other features not being too good so that 3rd parties have something to develop for. But it is important to make default aircraft excellent (for version 15 - this is not version 11) and this should compel 3rd parties to move into higher levels, for example working circuit breakers and the like. The msfs team should not intentionally dumb down aircraft or other features, it only keeps things stagnant. A slew of things have gone backwards, and this is all for the sake of 3rd parties?? What about the consumer (like JGMDubs24)?

Why is the msfs co-pilot still totally drunk? Will there ever be a mention of the msfs copilot in any sim update? Well the co-pilot has absolutely nothing to do with screenshots so its likely to get pushed out to Fall/Winter 2029, and the majority of the community says no problem in unison. :weary:


Wind ERROR, Why Microsoft makes so high claims of the weather engine, while so many bugs are present right from the beginning, In Addition, The Wind BUG was right from the first day the Simulator was published, While No Wind data was present in the Flight Simulator.

Whats with the Open Beta Community Testing for patches? Is That abandoned?

No. I also see this effect from the cockpit when taxiing.

I don’t think it takes much to approve a simulator for use as a FNPT (Flight Navigation Procedure Trainer), I have flown and instructed in a couple of Alsim FNPTs (French manufacturer) they were absolutely horrible. The graphics are awful, they do not (in my opinion) represent flight dynamics accurately yet they pass the QTGs. They do have everything simulated, prop. effects, adverse yaw etc. Not accurately in my opinion but at least it was there. The multi-engine model even needed less power on approach with one engine out (and feathered) compared to an approach on two engines, completely wrong drag modelling.

So I don’t think its hard to beat that, as long as all the basics and functionality are there, all the effects simulated, true altitude affected by temperature, adverse yaw, prop effects etc. You also need multi monitor support to project it on a 180+ screen? But of course we are talking about procedure trainers here, not level D full flight simulators.


If they want to stick to their release cadence why they make misledading promises to the users?

Regarding the new bug, #2 - Spikes on Terrain, our team is actively working on this issue and should have a solution in the next few days.

See here - official announcement posted 7th of January, we are a month later, issue still not fixed (or rather fixed by the community, which is a poor excuse as not all of the 1 million users are knowledgeable enough to apply a community fix). I would not call it “a few days”.

Being saddened be the deterioration of the visuals in the sim, a couple of days ago I decided to try something different, more arcade - Elite Dangerous in VR. And, at my first day I was greeted with a message that small update (60 MB) was applied. And this update broke the training for the new users of the game (you can call it “cosmetic issue” as I were still able to play, just skipping the newcomer training). I thought “No, it can’t be true - moving from one bug infested product to another”. And - guess what - they at Frontier have a voting system allowing the users to immediattely post issues, vote and track their resolution status on-line. In the result the hot fix was applied in ca. 2 days and the bug was resolved. Not 40 days… Unbeliveable…

I know, Elite Dangerous story is in the future (A.D. 3307), with MFS2020 we are not yet there. But it would be marvelous to see the same level of transparency, at least when it comes to bug fixing. They at Frontier probably have thier own problems as well, the product is simpler and much more mature than MFS2020, but the first impression regarding the customer care was on the differenet level compared to MFS2020.

1 Like

Where I come from, “should” is not a promise. It’s on the list of bug fixes for the next patch, according to the Q&A, so we should be thankful for that. But if you want to keep looking back, you go right ahead.

I know. I was a Kickstarter backer, and Alpha tester for ED. I even have a named star system. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

You are comparing a product that was released in 2014, to one released at the tail end of 2020. I’m glad you like ED, I tried my best. :joy:

1 Like

With all the talk about bugs not being fixed, while new features are introduced which only produce more bugs (in particular VR), it is interesting how Blender (the open source 3Dmodelling/animation app) have tackled similar problems - see for example Tracker Curfew — Blender Developers Blog, and Tracker Curfew Wrap Up — Blender Developers Blog.

One good quote from this:
To wrap up the Tracker Curfew and deliver a more stable Blender 2.83 the entire development team will work for the next two weeks on a bugs fixing sprint.

They do seem to have taken bug-fixing seriously, and dedicate effort to it even at the expense of slowing future development. I personally think this would be a good example for Asobo to follow.

I don’t know where to start with a reply, seriously.

There is nothing wrong with “teaching” people using FSX. Where did I say otherwise? You claim my logic of calling it a game is “incorrect”, yet you provide no evidence to the contrary. Just because aviation professionals use it in an educational context does not mean it has regulatory approval.

The word “simulator” has many uses. That in itself has no bearing on how accurate or physically correct the simulation is. Ever heard of a game called Surgeon Simulator? Or Goat Simulator? How accurate are American Truck Simulator or Car Mechanic simulator? Are those highly professional training tools because they are called simulators?

Simulator is a category not a hallmark of physical accuracy. FAA approval for ATDs has sometimes little to do with physical accuracy, as you can clearly see in the case of ESP and P3D. I know what ESP is and how it relates to P3D.

It feels a little tiresome to be talked down to like that, but I appreciate your efforts with posting links and all that. What entities like ProSim do in another realm of software is great, that does not preclude them to release something on an entertainment platform like FS2020. The are openly discussion the limitations their A320 has using FS2020.

I would have underlined that ELITE ALTURA excerpt differently. Note the terms “home flight simulator market” and “K-12 school programs”.

I am not sure why you make it your mission to defend FS2020 from being called a game. You can buy it in the XBox store for crying out loud. Don’t get so worked up over semantics. Simulator and game are not mutually exclusive categories. While FS2020 is a simulator, it is also a game.

And thank you, I sleep very well calling it a game. Because I have no negative connotation associated with that term whatsoever, rather the opposite. Something that obviously bothers you for some reason.


I sincerely apologise if you thought I was talking down to you, which I guarantee was never my intention. If you scroll down to the bottom of my response to you (which you did and duly noticed), I even wished you a good sleep at night. If I was talking down to you I wouldn’t be wishing you that :smiley: So…points taken, and I again apologize if you were offended by something I said.


More often than not, landside ground textures are left in low-resolution to keep performance up, since exploring the landside area with the camera isn’t exactly the primary purpose.

Not everyone does that, but it’s pretty common for optimization (and less work).

1 Like

So you’re telling me that the developers can’t add on or fix the micro stuff that the community has fixed? Hogwash. Of course they could. And should if they are getting paid. You’re letting them off the hook too easy. They’ve made millions off this thing. We should expect more.

Thank you. You are correct!!

1 Like

I you listened to the Q & A, they said concerning contrail\smoke on touch down, they will try to make it on Sim Update 3 but remain some bug, if it’s not on Sim update 3 (March 4), will be on Sim update 4 for sure (April 29)

1 Like