What MSFS needs are a few study level aircrafts, perhaps at least 2 proper airliners.
2 Likes
It has nothing to do with the community so far. It’s the arrogance to have to justify everything. We all thought that a simulator would come out that we could all use. From cell phone addicts to desktop pilots.
Gta should only be a symbolic example. When the manufacturer says we concentrate on the core of flight simulation, you should expect more than vfr aviation.
I am sure they will come. The likes of PMDG and others will eventually get a handle on where Asobo took this iteration, and produce some truly stunning options, if the level of detail attempted in the default is any example. Just compare the default FSX 747 with The Queen from PMDG. If we get that same step up with this sim… WOW, just, WOW, that is worth waiting for.
1 Like
That distinction is entirely academic and has absolutely no grounding in reality.
Computer flight simulators are a genre of games. They have always been, and actually, in the nineties they were the purest representation of AAA games. They were the games that pushed the gaming industry forward, and incidentally MSFS is the first in almost two decades that can be said is doing that again.
Sims haven’t done any “pushing” since FS2004.
Now they’re more niche, but they’re still a genre of games. You buy them at game stores. You run them on gaming hardware. They are entertainment.
The same goes for all other simulators. Train Simulators, Racing Simulators, and so forth. They’re all games.
If anyone comes here to tell me playing a home computer flight simulator for them has no entertainment purposes (or that entertainment is not their primary purpose), I’m sorry, I’m going to have a honest big laugh at it.
For under a hundred bucks, I expected the game I bought. I’m perfectly happy with it, bugs and all.
Anything ‘pro’ is in another category altogether, and at a substantially different price point.
4 Likes
Would have helped if they focused on just a few aircraft and made them useable, just a Cessna, Kingair, something regional, glider, helicopter and an Airbus, leave the rest to 3rd party developers and focus on the core simulator, flight model, weather, G1000/3000 functionality etc. Now the default planes are half baked and 3rd party devs haven’t released anything yet… And who needs a list of single engine planes as long as my arm? A little more variety and functionality would have been nice…
1 Like
And yet, ELITE, originally a PC based simulator has been being used in flight schools since 1987. Certification for various systems world-wide by EASA, the FAA, Indian DGAC, CASA, ANAC, South African CAA, Malayan CAA & Transport Canada, allows pilots to not only train IFR procedures but actually log the time in their logbooks as simulator time.
2 Likes
Simmers will say that it is a simulator… pilots will say this is a game.
But I don’t care for what it is.
What is so special about logging simulator time on an approved device? Isn’t that the whole purpose? By the way, the bar is not all the high for FNPTs, I have flown some really crappy ones which were certified and are in my logbook. Flight models so flawed its criminal, yet certified. On the multi-engine model for example drag actually decreased with an engine failure requiring less power on approach with one engine compared to two engines, just awfull.
You can use many, many games for a secondary instructional purpose. If you think flights sims are special in that, you’re mistaken.
That does not mean they’re not games anymore.
The point was simply that there are PC based simulators out there. That it is possible that someone may actually be using their simulator to train and NOT just play a game as Abriael was suggesting. It was not a comment on the quality of the products.
1 Like
I have to say, I have used flight simulators as a professional tool to enhance skills in the past. They are great as procedure trainers for example. Before doing a new type rating, if there was an accurate version of that particular plane available I would buy it and use it as a procedure trainer, get familiar with the cockpit layout, practise flows etc.
I wouldn’t use them to learn how to fly, you could maybe learn the basics but nothing more than that. But there are situations in which they are pretty usefull even for real world pilots.
3 Likes
Their more interested in the scenery then the AP and it’s also for Xbox that’s why I think it leans more on the game side I don’t use MSFS anymore I’m doing flawless flights in my other sim with everything working like a Swiss watch and 60+ fps IMO new is not always better
2 Likes
In the current state I agree, just take the nice graphics away and there isn’t much left to be excited about. The only thing MSFS excels in is visuals (which might be important for some users), its behind in basically any other area, flight model, weather, functionality etc.
Not saying it won’t get there, its just a shame that other areas didn’t got the same leap forward as the graphics.
2 Likes
Remember sitting in front of a big cockpit picture hanging on the wall? You may not be that old, but that was common practice for going through emergency procedures and flow familiarization.
1 Like
Been there, done that, many many hours 
. See even a piece of paper is already a usefull training tool 
.
1 Like
Nor I’m sure why you’re arguing the point that flight simulators are games, because they’re objectively a genre of games.
Every time I read this I facepalm. Hard. Different teams and different disciplines of developers are working on the scenery and on the autopilot. They’re not interchangeable, and the former is much easier to do than the latter, hence, it takes less time to perfect.
You were not doing “flawless flights” when that other sim was in a similar timeframe after launch as this one.
This is entirely false. Stock vs stock, MSFS beats competing sims in many other aspects, and by a long shot.
Took some time getting used to. First few times, sitting in the corner in the ready room, right beside the coffee pot, feeling like an idiot.
Well for you the eye-candy is important maybe. I’m more interested in the rest, the ATC system is a copy of FSX with completely made-up phraseology and even less usefull, with the current weather system you can’t even simulate a low visibility approach. No replay, no flight analysis. The flight model is flawed, propeller effect are not simulated at all, the Kingair and TBM decelerate even slower that a jet (and I have flown the Kingair in real life, I know what I’m talking about). Perform a flight at Innsbruck and you will see approaches which should be offset in real life are aligned with the runway, navaids not working, no localizer back beams. The G1000 in FSX had more functionality. Not a single flight director has a functional lateral mode without autopilot on. I can continue for a while if you want…
2 Likes