“Deal breakers” and issues are 2 different items. A deal breaker is subjective and an issue if tested to be true is a fact.
i have been using FSX for the past 15 years and now MSFS, in FSX i used to fly the PMDG 737 and the 747 and sure the detailed systems on those were a world apart, but what you need to understand is the stock 747 on fsx was completely BS, at least here we have a working A320 (i use the modded version) and am successfully able to complete flights from take off to parking using Rnav or ILS approaches along with the beautiful scenery MSFS2020 has to offer. If you want perfection wait to buy the study level planes when they are released (and probably end up costing more than the sim itself)
I’ve been using Microsoft Flight Simulators for the last 40 years but what does that have to do with anything? Your response doesn’t add anything or help in anyway to the comment I left so I am not sure why you felt you had to respond to me. I just took part of a statement that’s common that you left and wasn’t addressing you but the general crowd.
1 Like
If there is an actual bug in the Zlin Shock Ultra, I’ve not noticed it. The XCub seems a tad underpowered, but that is a FM tweaking issue rather than a bug. As are most of the not-quite-right things in the piston-engined aircraft I’ve tried. They probably aren’t ‘100%’ bug-free, but I’ve yet to encounter anything in a flight sim anywhere that ever was.
I can understand the frustrations of those trying to use the airliners, but the claims that ‘everything is too bugged to fly’ I’ve been seeing on the forums are simply false.
Edit: Just realised OP said, ‘standard package’, which the Zlin Shock isn’t. Point still applies though, re most of the other piston aircraft. Not perfect, maybe. Flyable, certainly.
And probably will never be. Probably he meant “there are any standard aircrafts that have some gameplay breaking bug?”.
Standard aircraft would never be 100% functional as in PMDG quality products, and that’s something I like
Thanks for your answers. To add precision to my question I just wanted some ideas which planes from Standard Ed. function as intended, not necessarily as the real counterparts. My usual planes 172 and 320neo are in my opinion momentarily useless.
Stock standard edition aircraft that function ‘as intended’? Well, limiting it to the piston-engined ones, here’s my take:
Pitts Special S2S. Anoying glitch if using TrackIr, and the FM isn’t perfect in my opinion (not that I’ve ever flown one IRL), but does its job.
XCub. A little underpowered, but otherwise fine. Flew one all the way from England to the Azores (in multiple legs, obviously), with no issues. And I intend to continue flying it like that, possibly the long way home…
DA42NG. Only tried it briefly, seemed underpowered maybe, but no obvious bugs.
DA62. As mentioned above, there are issues (slow acceleration, fuel consumption), but I’ve flown it enough to be confident I can use it for long-distance multi-stage trips to places the XCub won’t reach.
Extra 330LT. Like the Pitts, I have my doubts about the FM, but it seemed functional, from a brief test.
CTLS. Cute. Nothing obviously wrong, other than giving a general impression of not taking itself too seriously. 
ICON A5. There may be bugs, but none sufficiently obvious to prevent it being used. I think that most of my objections to the MSFS version would apply to the real thing too. Trying to be too clever for its own good.
VL-3. Seemed fine. Probably more aerobatic than it should be. Or maybe real-life pilots have more sense than me.
CAP 10. Fine, from what I could tell.
DR400 Cadet. Seemed underpowered, but that’s because they modelled the underpowered version.
Bonanza. This one has bugs. Been reported.
Cessna 152/172. Not flown them enough to comment.
Savage Cub. If there are bugs, they aren’t obvious. Perfect for local sightseing.
So, do they function ‘as intended’? Hard to say, since we can’t read the developers’ minds. The majority are functional enough to do the sort of thing in-sim that they can do in real life. No doubt there are bugs in some that I’m not aware of, and opinions regarding flight models (and how accurate a flight model can reasonably be expected to be) will differ. As far as I’m concerned though, the majority of the aircraft I’ve described function well enough for me to suit my purposes. Some could clearly do with more work, but that doesn’t stop me enjoying them. Stressing about things that might be wrong isn’t the best way to entertain yourself. Which is what I bought the sim for.
3 Likes
yes, like the DA40. Unfortunately the FADEC is not modelled so you always get full RPM. Maybe that’s the reason for the fuel consumption.
Add to this that most planes are not showing the magenta line on their Gamins now, and they were before. What a mess this sim is turning out to be, now they are breaking things that were working ok before!!!
Do you have any more installed? Like the FPS boost mods?
Actually, this question is spot on and is a way that Microsoft/Asobo might want to look at their work and progress. Because the answer is “no”, there is not one default aircraft that flies correctly in VFR/IFR and leveraging autopilot.
Like others, I find the TBM 930 is probably the closest to being considered complete and working. There are still some glitches in IFR procedures, but one can work around it and do a proper IFR flight. Not sure about the flight model though – seems a little too easy to fly.
The C172 is close in terms of flight model, but still the G1000 and autopilot are bugged so severely it is hard to fly IFR properly.
I am finding the A320 is a lot better than it was, and is quite flyable but IFR is still a bit problematic, but IFR flight is doable and autopilot works pretty well. This might be the lowest hanging fruits in terms of getting at least one airliner in a status that a reasonable person would call “finished”.
And that really is the main issue – what is “finished”? In my view, finished doesn’t mean “study level”. For aircraft built into the base product, “finished” should mean:
-
Aircraft flies as per the performance specs in the aircraft’s POH. Climb, altitude, temperature, and engine output are “true to the numbers”.
-
Avionics are modeled to the extent that both VFR and IFR flights are possible across departures, arrivals, and approaches.
-
Autopilot coupled flight works as a real life pilot of that aircraft would expect.
-
Flight planning and management is possible as per what a real life pilot that is experienced with the navigation system would expect.
In my view, that last point #4 is where most problems are. You just can’t manage flight plan at all. If you put in the flight from take-off to land at the main screen, and choose IFR and choose an approach, you get an appropriate flight plan. If you fly and follow that, you won’t get too frustrated. But IRL you don’t really get to pick your approach because the runway in use is anyone’s guess hours before you get there.
and I guess there should be a #5:
- There should be no system determined USER waypoints inserted which you are not able to avoid flying to that waypoint and still have the FMC keep the right leg activated. Especially, there should be no system determined USER waypoint that is placed behind the aircraft… which causes the aircraft to turn 180 degrees the wrong way from what they were cleared.
Ugh. Where they came up with that idea is what I want to know.
And how no one on the product development team couldn’t foresee would be such a problem. That tells me they had little actual flight sim subject matter expertise on the team.
2 Likes
Lucky you, I am having avionics/PFD problems in the 172/152 randomly shutting down and PFD and dome lighting randomly dimming and fuel only flowing from one tank. In the 152 com and nav 1 are blank and dont work, as well as fuel only flowing from one tank.
Just wondering if you are using the C152X mod? If so, you need to rotate the little knob on both COM1 & NAV1 to get the display to appear.
Might want to clarify IFR in the question since for VFR, you can fly anything and some people will say they can.
The Airbus works great. Just leave the APU on. Not had any major problems with it and its the only aircraft I fly.
The new mod master branch fixes the left engine shutdown issue. Has to do with the center tank being empty so they added a script to constantly pump 40 gal into the tank While flying.
@WeiserMoewe616 My advice would be to spring for the $1 special for gamepass or even a 1 month at 10 is worth it. You can try the standard and then buy on steam or whatnot. Also keep in mind if you have gamepass you get a 20% discount on any purchases (This includes the standard and both upgraded versions) too.
Yes Im using the 152x mod, but I have to have the Taxi lights on to show com and nav frequency, but they will still randomly dimm so I cant see them then I rotate the knob above the Alt gauge. But still hard to fly when only left fuel tank being used.
Using that mod, but i have to turn the Taxi lights on, to have my Radiostack have its display’s lit in the C152.
Several other planes are bugged even worse like the G36 and the King 350i in where the King Air is atm for me rendered useless as the Displays refuse to turn on.
I really wish i could rollback that Patch 2, before it, the game just ran fine in every aspect, now its a absolute joke in mechanics… But my good FPS pre patch did became even better Post Patch, just now only 3 usable planes
I definitely don’t have my taxi lights on.
I use my Saitek switch panel to flip on, in order, BAT/ALT/Avionics Master. No other switches. I now rotate the volume control for the radio stacks from Off to a higher volume, and the the instruments switch on.
Yes, thank you, I remved the “highsnow” fps fix mod from the community folder and the magenta line is back. Thank you so much. Never thought of that as being the cause. Much appreciated.
1 Like