FS2020 "PRO" needed?

Not arguing it isn’t a game. Only pointing out that at some point we may get to the point where we CAN use it as a simulator. That, I think is the result we would all like.

1 Like

You can go on as much as you want, but the entire VFR compartment in MSFS is infinitely superior to that of any other sim (and it’s funny to see people who think that VFR is somehow less “Important” than IFR for a sim).

Several of the elements you list are entirely subjective. For instance, part of the flight model are more complex and more advanced in MSFS, like the application of forces on different surfaces of the aircraft. The flight model isn’t “one thing” and cherry picking aspects that support your argument really doesn’t make for a solid one.

This without even mentioning that if we compare similar timeframes from launch, MSFS entirely demolishes every current competing product in every single aspect, and considering that MS and Asobo absolutely crush any competing sim’s team in terms of resources and access to real world data and materials, it should tell you that it’s just a matter of time before it overtakes them in every aspect in which time in development currently gives them an advantage.

Flight simulators are always products in ongoing development and always take time before they’re perfected. This is no different.

3 Likes

And why is MSFS superior in VFR? Because of the graphics! Thats exactly what I said, the visuals are great, the rest is no better than other sims. I did not mention anything about VFR vs IFR.

There is a long long thread about real world pilot comparing the flight model and so far nobody is really impressed, fundemental principles are completely missing in some cases. I’m not saying it will not get there, but in the current state it is no better then anything else on the market. Except the visuals, the visuals are great. More complex and more advanced does not mean its better. And I’m not convinced it is that much physics based as promised, you can still make a brick fly by altering the .cfg file :sweat_smile:.

No.

Microsoft have to make this viable for all, so whatever route they decide to go will be the best for everyone and that’s fine.

Flight Simulators take years to develop and some products never get to a point of completion - the new MS Flight Simulator took 4-5 years before it was released, and will be further months beyond that to get it to where they would like. A ‘PRO’ version is highly unlikely, almost never.

What we have currently is unmatched, the sheer scope and detail is unbelievable. Things are not going to be perfect, but they will work to improve the simulator to a point it is appealing for all - no one, whether you pick it up for the first time, or a long-term user, will be left behind. This all takes time, so have a little patience. Sure, some things are broken but those critical functions will be addressed eventually. :slight_smile:

It isn’t just a matter of graphics. Of course, graphics help in VFR, but that’s just part of the picture. Accuracy and graphics are two different issues. You can create the prettiest world in the gaming industry, but that won’t let you fly VFR if it’s not accurate.

PS: If I had a dollar for each person pretending to be a “real world pilot” to bash this sim and artificial solidity to arguments that otherwise have no ground to stand on, I’d be able to buy almost every scenery on the market.

For now, I’ll trust the one real world pilot I have evidence of, who happens to be my father. After having flown F-104s and G91s in the military and then from learjets to airliners for decades, he’s quite impressed.

Considering the tone of certain posts I read around here from (alleged) “real world pilots,” I certainly have to doubt their qualification (of the validity of their claims), considering that they should be the first to understand the complexity of this product and how much it’ll take for it to be perfected.

The OP was asking if we need a PRO version for the simulation crowd and let the arcade fans play the current version. I think we can have both in one. Even the arcade fans will benefit from a solid simulation.
If you want to barnstorm with your XBox controller you can do that now with assists turned on and crashes turned off. We just need Asobo/MS to get the base squared away so the serious “study level” developers can do their thing.
Previous versions of sims never had the potential we have here, once the ‘world’ it is in gets humming. Real live weather, real live traffic, real world outside the window for VFR navigation and more.
Once we have real quality aircraft none of the serious simmers will ever launch a default airplane again.

3 Likes

yes we should all upload a photo of out license for proof :upside_down_face:. Not sure if you can call the F104 an aircraft though, that thing is more like a rocket. And regarding solid arguments, there are plenty. Regarding the flight model I have done a lot of objective tests, comparing data with the approved aircraft flight manual. There are some good threads out there, but some are indeed ■■■■.

No, you shouldn’t (not that it would actually be evidence). And at the same time, you shouldn’t expect your arguments to have any more weight than anyone else’s just because you write on an internet forum that you’re a “real life pilot” or the real life CEO or Airbus.

I find it amusing how many of the loudest “pro-simmers” are claiming they don’t care about “eye-candy”, yet in other threads they cry about specific graphical details…

4 Likes

I find it amusing when people define themselves “pro-simmers” or similar things to be honest. :joy:

If some took themselves a bit less seriously, they’d probably enjoy the sim (or any product really) a lot more.

1 Like

If it comes to assesing the flight model for example it definitely matters if you are a real world pilot or not. If you don’t have real world experience, what are you gonna compare the flight model to? Other simulators? But on the topic of a “pro-version” could use some help voting these up:

And a solution to the inacurate ATC phraseology:

Cheers :clinking_glasses:

You can have my votes. I’m all for this sim being improved.

1 Like

Just another false statement. I don’t believe for a second that this game was released with solely the simmer in mind. The guy making this statement back in 2019 may have truly thought that was what they were working for but their goal sure did shift at some point. There’s no way he can make that statement, then at release we get half functioning aircraft, many of the aircraft not even close to their real-life counterparts in terms of performance, no support for many cockpit builders hardware, ect, ect ,ect.

It seemed like a couple of the other guys on stage started looking very nervous, like they were almost thinking omg, why is this guy saying what he is saying!

It is just so hard for me to believe much of anything they say after releasing all the previews and that whole discovery series. Then the initial release didn’t have half of the features they had been advertising, aircraft didn’t perform even though they had advisors from the different manufacturers, avionics were absolute garbage, and on and on.

Like Always I don’t Claim This Game Won’t Get There EVENTUALLY! It just was not anywhere near the level of hype and completeness that Microsobo had claimed for the past year and a half.

1 Like

Seems like a majority of the people clamoring for a “pro” edition are not even aware of Flight Simulator 2000 Professional edition. There was nothing “pro” about it except additional aircraft. Essentially what Deluxe and Premium Deluxe are to Standard.

Now I have talked about how some of the graphics don’t seem to work or are some issues with but I have stated several times that I believe the graphics have always been an area that I thought Microsobo had done very well, truly next gen in so many ways. Not everyone that discusses those LOD issues are being critical in a negative way like you are suggesting. My gripe has and will always be on features that had been advertised pre-launch and were completely absent or bugged at release. Avionics, live weather, aircraft performance, and the watermasking (particularily areas that were showcased in Discovery series). No excuse for those issues to have been as bad as they were.

1 Like

People asking for a PRO edition, then requesting items in that edition that were already stated to supposably be in the version that Microsobo already launched. :thinking:

1 Like

Not sure if there is anything that could come close to a “pro” edition without a hydraulic cockpit and certified instrument panels.

As far as what was promoted by the marketing department and what we actually got. That seriously needs to be rectified.

1 Like

Note that a 3rd party such as AEROSOFT release a full extended 747-400 PMDG for 120$. A advanced weather module +/- 50$. FSCREW for Airbus or Boeing & other… ???$ Navigraphe +/- 100$ for 1 year. A few extended airports…??$ If you want a"F.L.I.G.H.T S.I.M.U.L.A.T.O.R"… i think you will be close of +/- 1000$. Only Software!! What do you want? a basic game? or a FLIGHT SIMULATOR? I precise,if you add extended airliner and above named software, your FPS will decrease for 50% because they works all together. How many kids are able to spend 7000 $ and more for it?

There are some simmers out there that can take the basic version of the software and make it “Pro” with their homemade cockpits though. Wish I could count myself among their ranks. :pensive:

Microsobo had claimed and advertised they had the advanced weather and the nav data covered in their game though. So the price should come down but I do definitely understand where you are coming from. If someone truly wants a full flight sim experience it is going to cost a lot more than just the initial sticker price of the software.