This thread it all very silly. My older brother is a 787 instructor for Virgin Atlantic and has worked closely with Boing over the years developing their ‘pro’ flight simulator for the 787. He loves FS2020 and there’s apparently moves to try and make their simulators more like FS2020. People in the industry are so impressed by it, certainly from a visual point of view anyway.
In pro sims they want things like cars, boats and balloons. Anything to make the sim as immersive and real as possible for training pilots.
This. And elitist, gatekeeping and all of that nonesense that’s been around since many of the flightsim community seem to not want the community to get bigger because, god forbid, somebody would enjoy their hobby who isn’t a “serious simmer”
Totally, what MSFS offered initially and still offers through update packages of all sort is huge value for the money we paid.
The tech of the engine is still unmatched with any entertainment or certified sim out there
And it is a very versatile platform obviously with a lot customization.
But sometimes it’s simply the shell around a product that makes the difference psychologically.
I mentioned it before, but if there was a main option to switch the whole Menus experience of MSFS to a traditional Windows like experience (similar to the Dev Mode or the Other Sim) and without all the options for XBox gaming style, the core experience of the platfom will be perceived differently.
I am not saying this to criticize but certainly MSFS is meant to be XBox first and this is obvious in the shell around the main core simulation that is pretty open to more technical complexity, by itself without being a certified platform for training.
Let’s not forget that making MSFS for XBox first brings revenues because we all know that when it was a niche sim for PC only and for the geeky simmers (like me), it vanished…
So the request for a “Pro” version, I see it being the PC Version addressing the shell around the core simulator (aka the menu experience and the removal of the console assistance options and usability).
I agree. I own 2024 but have never flown in it - the obligation to set up a pilot and his/her bling and to do a walk around clicking on highlighted parts of the aircraft totally turned me off to the degreee I have never even taken off in 2024!
It’s on my hard disk, but the last time I clicked on the 2024 icon was the day I purchased it and decided nope I not going to bother selecting facial hair, jacket etc.
2020 is just fine for the type of flying I do - only DA62, fllying IFR procedures.
I would love a developer to release an alternative user interface for 2024.
Well each to their own.
But in case someone else comes across this post and thinks these are reasons to not use 2024, I’d point out that neither of those are required.
You can just bypass setting up a character and it will use a default one.
And other than occasionally testing a reported issue with the walkaround, I never do them for casual flying. I either pick a departure point in the air far enough out from my IFR approach IAP to get set up for the approach and then fly it for practice. If I want to actually takeoff and fly to the IP for my desired approach, I just select a point on the ramp which isn’t a parking spot, and select “on ground - ready for takeoff”. Then I can run all the appropriate checklists I want to run (or not) and taxi out to the runway (or contact ATC as appropriate). That option isn’t available in 2020. Other folks can also select points that are off-airport to takeoff, particularly for folks that are “bush flying” or just off the beaten path on some flat spot they want to takeoff from. Again, an option that’s not available in 2020.
Optionally, you can start at the end of any runway you want by selecting the runway “dot” on the airport zoomed view and the plane will be ready for takeoff.
So you’re welcome to continue to use 2020 as you wish and is your right, just wanted to make sure anyone else reading this doesn’t think these reasons should keep them from using 2024.
Regards