FS2020 "PRO" needed?

MSFS is to cheap to be realistic.Look my post 20mn ago

  • 400$ addons !!

$750 gets you an FAA approved IFR sim. :slight_smile:

They never said “solely.” What you just did is a strawman argument.

Their statement looks entirely accurate, on the other end, strawman arguments are inherently false.

As for the rest of your post, by that logic no simulator in history has ever been made with the simmers in mind, because those problems are common to ALL at release. They’re inherent to the complexity of this kind of product.

If you don’t know that, either you have not played a sim at release before, or you don’t remember.

1 Like

Not only the software cost a lot more. A powerfull PC is required for treat all the programs together. I am flight simmer sinds 2012 and 63 years young. MSFS is yet to basic for me and the many bugs make it impossible to learn seriousely about flying because no one aircraft is not correctly configurated and mostly the airliners. I give a example: The 747 MSFS can not fly more than 8 hours, the real 747 can fly 21 hours.The 787 MSFS can 35 hours,the real 787 15 hours because they have invert Kgrs in Lbs. I have watch the interview video, the team look not so happy and i think that they have underestimated how complicated it is. Asobo’s team know nothing about structural and physical aspects of aeronautic.

It doesn’t seem like their knowledge extends much above PPL level. One of the Q&As they got asked about visibility and the inability to get the visibility down below like 3 km, their answer was:

“in the real world you won’t fly VFR anyway if its below 3 km visibility.”

First of all you could, down to 1500 m special VFR or in class F & G.

Second there is more in life than just VFR :sweat_smile:.


Yeah I remember that, thought it was a really asinine response and says a lot about why the sim is in the sad state it is.

I remember they also said in IFR you leave that low visibility layer in a few seconds… No you don’t, especially not while taxiing on the ground, but even while in flight it can take a minute or two on both takeoff and on landing to get through a misty layer below a cloud deck. How do they not understand such things.


You can dream. On any other sim, a single modules costs $80 or more aka the price of the entire base MSFS.

They always said that they would make basic planes and for realistic planes you would have to buy third party from PMDG and the like. Unfortunately, making realistic sophisticated planes takes a lot of time and resources, so we’ll have to wait.

So what else is not “pro” ? Definitely the ATC can be improved so that it AT LEAST doesn’t give completely incoherent replies. Asobo should treat these incoherences as bugs since that’s what they are. But even the most sophisticated ATC will not match VATSIM or equivalent, so “pro” simmers should play with those.

So IMHO, Microsoft/Asobo should keep going the current path, aka focusing on the base sim and correcting as many geographical assets as possible, improving the SDK which is really bad right now (according to 3rd party developers), and let the 3rd party developers develop the planes to the required level of detail.

Depends on your expectations, is it going to become a Level D simulator? Of course not, it wil get better and more realistic over time and an advantage of having the whole gamers community tuning in is that there is probably enough revenue to keep developing the title.

I just hope there will be a “game” mode and a “realistic mode” with the latter not being dumbed down.

It is one thing to leave a number of things out of the implementation, such as PMDG or A2A level systems simulations.

It is something else entirely to implement things and get them wrong. ATC regression from FSX, live weather being two steps forwards and 3 steps back compared to FSX, autopilots with a random dive bomber mode, GPS RNAV support that is a regression from FSX, just some items on the long list of regressions… Those things should be fixed in this revision as part of the MSFS platform, not in some far-in-the-future paid “pro” version.

LOL, you don’t know how much flight simulator modules cost. A single plane is usually $80 or more, and it is justified because simulating an airliner is a whole project in its own right. Some plane sims come with a 500 pages manual or more (the A10 Warthog in DCS comes with a 900 pages manual, that gives you an idea of how detailed they are).

I have moved this to the Wishlist so it can be voted on

How do we vote No? It is not the same thing as not voting.

1 Like

I don’t think that is possible but I will check

EDIT - there is no function to down vote. So the only option is not to vote for things you don’t like or think are a bad idea

Thanks for raising it though since it has got a discussion going in the mod team

1 Like

Microsoft flight simulator has always be a game for the masses first. I really don’t know why everyone is getting so excited about it being released on Xbox.

It’s basically the gran turismo of the flight simulator world.

IT FOR FUN! And always has been.

It is not possible to vote that we do not need a Por version?

I do not see that we have to pay for corrections that have to be fixed.
under the label PRO.

1 Like

How can you make MS/ASOBO responsible for 3rd party add-on repairs?
For example: the boeing 787 that comes with FS2020 is more or less flyable but gets free updates on a reguarly basis.( for the great part based on customer input via Zendesk)
If PMDG comes with their version of the same aircraft you’ll look at a price level of $70-80 for only that plane.
I think it’s worh every single dollar/euro/peso/roebel/yen or whatever ( based on experiences with the 777 in FSX)
In my humble opion it is the prime reponsbilaty of PMDG to ‘service’ their products.
In case they have an official partner agreement they should be able to troubleshoot bugs after MS pushes mandatory updates wich could possible influence the PMDG version
That’s what partner agreements are for.

1 Like

Indeed a Pro version is needed.

Pro Features:

  • Better flight modeling to properly model weight / inertia better and be more stable in flight.
  • Updated and Garmin approved avionics
  • Pro level ATC
  • More start options and independent of position: cold/dark, turn around, APU on, engines running.
  • The Big one: a Boeing 737 Max aircraft (properly done).

Yes, but it shouldn’t be a separate edition. They should just add all that to the sim

1 Like