Google A320neo mod
I stand in awe of MSFS 2020. I canât recall a time I have been more excited about a software release. It was ridiculous. And my first week with the sim was ecstatic. I just couldnât believe the beauty, the scope - yes, the ambition - of what I was seeing. Magnificent!
But familiarity makes critics of us all. Itâs not easy to ignore the flaws, the ugly inconsistencies, poor texturing, technical glitches in the landscape, the lack of low-lying coral seas in entire regions of the world, etc, etcâŚ
I love this flight sim. For me, itâs very close to being an answered prayer. But I know itâs not perfect and I canât ignore the problems. If I didnât care I wouldnât be writing this now.
1 Like
There is no doubt in my mind it will get better. I bet MS is making deals w/ add on makers considering which to outright buy and which software engineers to âacquireâ from other companies. I would bet in sometime in the near future they will announce company acquisitions, probably after the next quarterly reports.
I bet fseconomy or OnAir gets bought for direct integration ( for a âcareer modeâ and I bet orbx is high up there aswell.
1 Like
I remember the first time I saw video footage of it. My first thought was âNo way is this a flight simulatorâ. They are modelling grass! Why would they do this?"
Now some wags might suggest it isnât a flight simulator, but what this has done has upset the apple cart. It seemed to be some unwritten rule, or perhaps expectation, that a flight simulator has to have terrible graphics, and if it doesnât look bad, then it must be a poor simulator.
The same people would be those that hand generate ortho, or pay money for hand crafted airports.
2 Likes
There is a video out there of just how much (and intensive) hand editing is necessary, and in progress, for improving the scenic elements.
Pretty cool, as I expect it will get better.
Think this is it:
1 Like
I had a hope weâd get a good base without it turning into a money pit like they all do.
Iâve spent hours looking around and Iâm happy in general .The UK landscapes are not bad at all.
The cityscape lacks the correct looking buildings in places and few tall buildings are where they should be.
The aircraft need some attention but for msfs default aircraft theyâre the best to date.
A bit disappointed .,that none feel complete.Though you find somewhere thatâs had some attention USA , some parts of Europe.And it really does impress.
A update to requirements should be SSD or M.2 is a must .
Think Microsoft should temper the disappointment with a free Helicopter.Bell 47 would be perfect.I see one regular looks and sounds great.Come on Microsoft gives us a whirlybird!Not having a helicopter is truly missed.
On another point related to the program; Australia and the UK need a local server.The ping in the UK is boarder line at best,sets the stuttering going at worst.I do have good broadband so somethings up there.
1 Like
The best âlookingâ default aircraft, yes.
From my perspective as a pilot and as someone who has used flight simulators like X-Plane and FSX for procedural training purposes (IFR stuff), I can assure you that most of the default aircraft in X-Plane absolutely destroy the MSFS 2020 defaults in terms of system implementation and accuracy.
MSFS 2020 has a way to go yet.
1 Like
Sydney Harbor Bridge Mod - https://flightsim.to/file/83/sydney-harbour-bridge
Sydney Tower Mod - https://flightsim.to/file/141/sydney-tower-v1-0
Eventually every major city will have all its landmarks once people get round to either making them or ripping them from google maps.
1 Like
Iâve never bought a flight sim expecting a planes to be anything but slightly lack luster. I assume if I want a good one I would need to purchase an addon. This doesnât really bother me. Let the Sim build the world/physics, that being said, I bet we will hear about some âAcquisitionsâ soon.
Which is good because when I tried to buzz the White House and the Capital I found very boring nonsense and TOO much trees along the mall.
For me Ms/Asoboâs approach of trying to automate the process of creating the scenery makes absolutely sense and is one of the most attracting things about this sim. Theyâve developed a basis here that allows for constant improvement on a global scale without the need of a huge, expensive team. As better imagery comes in, the world will look better. As Blacksharkâs AI gets âsmarterâ, better autogen will be available, etc. And all of this globally. Of course, the more handcrafted POIs the better, but this can be done by 3rd party devs and the community (which is already doing an amazing job). I think it is much more important that the devs focus on the core and set it up for the future. I see a huge potential here. Just my perspective.
3 Likes
Also the lack of Stinger missiles⌠
Some good statements from everyone here.
I think, at least speaking in terms of myself, that a lot of us are a bit bored at the moment.
Itâs all well and good to shoot around looking at stuff up close in a drone, but if youâre like me, youâre really hanging out for the PMDG or FSLabs stuff to really kick things up to the next level. Once that stuff hits the market - I wonât really be too phased about what the ground scenery looks like up close â Just the approach paths and how it looks from 35,000ft.
As long as the skyline in the distance looks relatively realistic, The airports look âfamiliarâ and I can work out where I am just by peering out the window, Iâll be happy. I think weâre already three quarters of the way there.
2 Likes
While I do think youâre on the wrong to expect that every single thing on the face of the planet will be accurately represented, I do share your frustration when knowing that your city isnât accurately represented.
Iâm hoping that MSFS launches a scenery gateway system, so we can channel that frustration into handcrafting all the imperfect scenery by ourselves.
Just take a breather, enjoy what hasnât been done in the history of Flight Sims and get excited for the future. Life is already stressful enough to add stress about some whacky or lackluster sceneries. They will improve the entire sim, teams are modifying the default planes, community have added liveries, 3rd part devs are also working on landmarks The possibilities are endless. Weâre all in this together, just be patient and enjoy other already great looking sceneries in the meantime. 
1 Like
It has to do with 3D-bingmaps. Amsterdam isnât supported, so it look kind of fake. And I agree that the handmodeleling of the trainstation could be better. However, a lot of parts in the US is supporterd by the 3D data, so in the simulator it look very good. Then again, if your flying to low you see weird objectâs, so that could be better.
Anyway. I think Bing should do the whole world in 3D. Of course that is immense work, so it most likely wonât happen I gues
Those guys are a joke and they know it. Imagine, complaining that in the first iteration of a new platform, using technology that has never been attempted in a flightsim, some trees are in the wrong spot, houses arenât 105% perfectly accurately modelled with the family name on the doorbell sign, and the dog house isnât having the accurate texture and height perfectly represented. This kind of complaining is absolutely ridiculous, especially when they come out of the woodworks, shouting how inaccurate it all is, how they expected even more and how they were misled and tricked by Microsoft, and then mask this as âopinionsâ and fair criticism. Itâs an absolute joke. Oh, and donât forget how FSX is more accurate (lol) Itâs sad to have such people in this community but nothing unusual. Xplane and P3D has those special cases, too. Some people are fundamentally unhappy with their lives and need to stomp everything, no matter how good or revolutionary, to feel superior and all-knowing.
6 Likes
Such a toxic post
4 Likes
Every flight simulator out there is âfar from accurate.â This is the closest to accurate there is (and by a long shot) and likely the closest to accurate that is possible with current tech.
3 Likes