I think the C172 isn’t too bad. Certainly not so bad that it shouldn’t be fixable. Doesn’t seem horribly different to X-Plane (though doubtless neither are like the real thing , I wouldn’t know).
Newbie. It’s not real programming if it’s not toggle switches and binary.
2 Likes
Hopefully you don’t get a CTD with the real thing.
Not a ‘newbie’. Programmed the 1401. Had to standby to flip toggle switches when it choked. I did code in Binary. Some programs took 3 trays of cards.
In my opinion the terrain is real in some zones but realistic in most of them.
It was only meant in fun, honest guv 
I know. We just got a little off topic.
I didn’t read other answers yet but mine is that if you compare MSFS with P3D and X-Plane, it’s really the most arcade physics of the 3. The first hours brought me much joy because of the eye candy but unfortunately at this stage it’s absolutely not a simulator. It’s been 6 months and a number of updates now and it’s become obvious that Microsoft/Asobo wants to sell a product for Xbox players and very casual simmers. I can’t believe I’m saying this but I lost all interest in flight simulation in the past months because flying in MSFS is boring if you look for challenges (but beautiful for exploring the world…) I’m starting to regret uninstalling my overly tweaked and heavy P3D…
If you remove the beautiful sceneries and graphics and eye candy clouds, in my opinion there isn’t a single aspect that is better in MSFS than in the previous generation simulators.
I guess flight schools are going to get many newcomers that only played MSFS and that got even more bad habits than with P3D because how ridiculously planes behave.
I’m now waiting for A2A to do something but for now I’m out. And a bit disappointed.
Just out of curiosity, where are you finding the physics are distracting from your experience?
As someone who flies real planes for a living, I can guarantee you all of the simulators mentioned are not even remotely close replicating real life flying and really should be used as entertainment no matter what.
Truthfully, you can’t really emulate real flying without airline level simulators anyhow.
2 Likes
I don’t have the courage to write it myself so here is what some people say and exactly what I feel:
« No P factor, no prop wash, odd center of gravity, some planes don’t have asymmetric thrust and those that do, the resulting roll/yaw is minimal. Death stall is not a thing, or most of the departures for that matter. There are tons of things that are wrong.
As a commercial multi engine pilot, my opinion is that the MSFS 2020 flight model is not accurate at all. It’s a beautiful environment to explore but the dynamics are way off. This is especially tru in multi-engine flying. What happens in the sim when you lose one engine on a twin engine aircraft bears no relation to reality. It would be downright dangerous to try to relate any real world flying to this beautiful toy. »
There are many more things like unrealistic weather turbulence and thermals (none), on-rails feeling when landing (what the hell are these slips?), airliners behave like cessnas. But I don’t even want to start talking about specific airplanes, that’s really bad.
1 Like
If the original poster is thinking of using it to save money on flying training the answer is it does not matter.
100’s of unsupervised hours in any simulator (no matter how accurate) for a trainee pilot can be a bad thing, you might be entrenching bad habits.
1 Like
As a “real world” pilot, I can say that had I the opportunity to use MSFS 2020 during my first forty hours of flight toward getting my PPL it would have helped.
Is it “real?” Of course not: it’s a simulator. Making the statement that it is an arcade game is a matter of opinion. I’ll refer to the famous line spoken by Clint Eastwood in his Dirty Harry guise with regard to opinions…
I only “fly” GA aircraft in the sim - with exceptions made for good simulations of WWII aircraft - and that has held true since the early days of Flight Simulators, going back over twenty years. This iteration of both the C152 and the C172 “Classic” provide hours of entertainment. Both are an order of magnitude better than the “stock” aircraft we had in FSX. I usually fly either of those into airports I am familiar with in the real world. Are they accurate? Yes, for a simulator.
If you are seeking to get your PPL and use flight sim as an additional training resource, it cannot possibly hurt and might actually help, especially with being tutored by a real world flight instructor. At the very least you will become familiar with looking at the panel and practicing your instrument scan technique. It might even help you to feel more comfortable in the cockpit of a real aircraft. Landing is always the payoff, and takes the most practice and skill. In forty-plus years of real world flight I’ve never had the “same” landing twice, and I always find something I could have done better. That’s the fun of it, for me anyway. Maybe that’s why so many people love golf…
3 Likes
I would say that for all three sims you mentioned to be honest…each in varying and differing degrees.
Just my opinion
It could possibly hurt, depending upon what bad habits you pick up, but on the whole I agree with you
I’m enjoying the sim and in places it looks glorious…
but…
I don’t think I’ve flown more than 20 miles without some sort of immersion spoiler. Popping terrain in the mountains, great tiles of darker/lighter textures on the plains, snow textures in the summer that Asobo have tried to disguise with a green tint, Popping textures on coastal cliffs, Servers that can’t deliver the PG consistently, too much dynamic range midday (like an over exposed photo) and blocks of flats on the sites of historic castles (a generic castle would be an improvement).
So visually there are times when it looks very lifelike and a lot of the time the immersion is ruined…A Curates egg.
I’ll stick with it for a while but I don’t think occasionally impressive eye candy is enough for lasting commitment.
1 Like
The key is being tutored by a CFII at the same time. In that scenario the Flight Instructor could actually use this Simulator as an interactive training tool. For VFR flying.
IFR capabilities are badly pranged at the moment…
1 Like
Totally agree. I’m also not super optimistic about it getting better anytime soon as I think they are pretty VFR & “more content” focused as they march towards an initial Xbox release.
I’d imagine the console user base will be highly skewed towards VFR interest.
1 Like
It depends on the plane. Larger aircrafts where the flight is mainly instrumental and the G force negligible could be very close to reality if the different functionalities would have been better implemented, maybe it will be done in the future by ASOBO itself or through some MODs. Small aircraft (CESSNA) have most of the functionalities implemented and assuming to fly in a calm weather are in my opinion quite close. Fighter jets or fast propellers are instead and again in my opinion totally unrealistic
Err not strictly true.
I know where flying simulators are used that have no motion control and graphics external to the fixed cockpit are very basic.
The sim is used for flight dynamics and software development.
I was mainly thinking about the flight dynamic’s part of the sim. Sorry I wasn’t very clear about what I was asking about…My apologies.