Refocus development on airliners

@RulingPen63350, it’s simple. Just as in real life, it’s much more difficult to create a study level 747 than it is for a 172. And I don’t know what 787 you paid extra for, but I’d be money it’s not a very good one. Maybe better than the default, but nothing like the real beast.

As for fair, it’s like my pappy used to say (often!)… “Life isn’t fair!”

1 Like

The 787 i’m talking about is the default aircraft of the premium version.

I know I’ll get spanked for this, but I don’t care.

I gladly paid extra for all the premium aircraft, even though I think that pretend flying a tubeliner is stupid. I’d like them to use the extra cash improving and maintaining the sim. That’s why I fronted up. I don’t need them working on planes I wish I could delete. If you want to fly up there where the scenery doesn’t matter that’s fine. However, don’t suggest f*ing up my experience by delaying improvements to the basic sim because you want “study level” A/C on a beer budget.


@WardoMon52, not sure where you got that idea, but the study level stuff comes from 3rd parties, not MS, so whatever time they’re spending making their “tubeliners” doesn’t affect the basic sim in the least. Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?

With the recent improvements to mods, I have too many planes and not enough time. 787, A320, Longitude, CRJ, CJ4, DA 62,… Too many great planes to have time to fly them all.

I misunderstood “Refocus development on airliners” to mean “Refocus development on airliners”.
My bad.

I seem to remember an integration between MS/ASOBO and an aircraft developer recently. It also seems to me that there was a lot of talk about that developer taking an active role in improving the current airliner offerings. Maybe I just pay attention differently. maybe the addition of a strong developer was just something I imagined.

Must have been. I read this thread and it is obvious that ASOBO has no interest in improving or refining the airliners they have in this game. Hmm?

Except it’s not a part of the premium version. Well, it is, but you don’t have to get the premium version to get the 787, as it’s standard fare in all versions. I’ve never flown it and I have a tendency to avoid the default airliners like the plague, but I may in the short term future. It will likely frustrate the hell out of me because it’s not study level, but I don’t expect it to be, as that would be ridiculous.

But it’s one of 20(!) aircraft that come with the standard edition, and you expect to get 20 study level planes, plus the rest of the sim, for half the cost of one real study level airplane? That’s just preposterous. Oh, and there is a free mod available that at least brings it somewhat closer to “study level”, though I don’t know how complete the mod is. (I’m not saying it’s complete or not complete, I’m saying I literally don’t know. But even the developers themselves admit it’s not adding all that much yet.)

You are not wrong, but I for one have advocated keeping the base CJ4 and the WT CJ4 as two separate aircraft, so those who prefer the simplicity of the unmodified plane still have it available to them. Just the Navigraph integration alone sent me running to YouTube to make sure I knew how to use it properly, PLUS a Navigraph subscription. I don’t see YouTube kiddies being interested in Navigraph in the first place, much less being willing to pay for the subscription fees (or having much success explaining to their parents why such a thing is needed), nor do I see MS buying Navigraph and just giving away the subs for free, though I wouldn’t complain if they did. For that matter I’m not sure that Navigraph itself is even going to be XBox compatible.

Part of those fees goes to pay Jeppesen for the use of their data, and while I suppose it wouldn’t be that big of a challenge for MS to also just buy them, and another choice that I wouldn’t complain about, I have a hard time seeing it happen.

And though I’ve been a long time advocate of MS doing the same thing with the FBW folks, buying them and integrating their A32NX into the sim, I would make the same recommendation for the same reasons, and that is that the A32NX and the base A320 should remain separate aircraft, so those who prefer the simplicity of the A320 can still have that without the training involved in learning to fly the A32NX. That’s another one that will have Navigraph integration very soon as well.

Failing to do those things will have a negative impact on the 12-year-old demographic as I outlined in a post early in this thread, which will damage the sims profitability in the long run for MS.

OK. I’ve rambled enough. I’m actually going to go try flying the 787 mod myself right now, if I can manage to stay awake.

1 Like

Don’t understand this sentence. The 787 is part of the premium deluxe version.
There’s no other way to get it.

Why would non study level be frustrating? I definitely don’t need every system to be simulated.
Did a few short flights with the 787 and I didn’t encounter any significant problems.
That’s what a default aircraft should be capable to deliver IMO.
I prefer a higher framerate/immersion over simulated ciruit breakers and a jerky flying experience.

Seems you (and @RulingPen63350) may be right about that one. I was relying on this article for my information, but according to other articles they seem to have reversed the 747 and 787, so I apologize. They should fix their article.

As for why I would find non-study level aircraft frustrating, the very fact that you ask that question is why. I also think mods like the WT CJ4 and FBW A32NX should stay separate (assuming MS eventually buys FBW as they did WT), instead of replacing the default versions. I prefer the complicated, realistic airliners, and you don’t, and that’s okay.

Neither of us is right or wrong, we just have different approaches to the sim. If MS replaces the less complicated with the more complicated, rather than allowing them to co-exist, they risk putting off people in your frame of mind (and there are a lot of you guys, including millions of kids who want nothing more than a copy of FS2020 in their box of christmas goodies), and they risk losing a lot of business as a result.

That’s not good for Microsoft, and it’s not good for the rest of us who want the app to be successful so that they can continue pouring money into further development of the product.

I’m not sure why you would say that study level stuff causes “a jerky flying experience”, as that has not been my experience so far. Future mods might prove to be more resource intensive, but the sim itself is already very resource intensive, to the point that even a person with a 10900K paired with a 3090 can’t necessarily turn all the options “up to 11” and expect flawless performance.

Back on topic, I do not think MS is going to start offering study-level stuff in lieu of the default stuff for business reasons, nor should they. If they do, they’ll lose a lot of revenue from customers who don’t want it.

And, as Forrest Gump would say, “That’s all I’ve got to say about that.”

At least for now.

1.Realistic and complicated aren’t necessarily related.
Study level means that you can basically use the aircraft to train for your type rating and not even the Aerosoft CRJ is study level.
If you simulate normal ops you don’t notice a significant difference between the rather basic Aerosoft and the study level FSLabs A320, except for the much lower performance of the latter.

2.Haven’t tried it myself, but from what I’ve read the FBW A320 appears to have a higher impact on performance than the default A320.
If you adjust your settings you can have a very smooth and immersive flying experience in MSFS even with a subpar PC.
Flying a complex aircraft you will most likely have to lower your settings even further if you want a realistic = smooth flying experience.

3.A default study level airliner doesn’t make sense from a ROI POV for MS, that’s all.
Flying a study level A320 from A to B wouldn’t significantly differ from flying the default A320 from A to B.
You can’t jump into either one without any Airbus knowledge and fly it successfully.
Why should there be any loss of revenue? If the aircraft is too complex, people will simply not fly it.

Condescension is unpleasant, so please don’t. This game is an experience for all, and experience of the imagination, some enjoy their procedures, others just want to fly and let there imagination take over, age not withstanding. This is not your game, it’s everybodys who bought it, never mind the source of that money.

I find this tone troubling, go in peace.

1 Like

True. Some of the most realistic, are conversely the easiest to fly. You takeoff, hit the autopilot, climb to cruise, and then your job is done except for inputting the destination approach and STAR (assuming they’re different from what dispatch told you to expect), and monitoring and reacting to any emergencies that might happen. Oh, plus hand flying the last 200’, and flaring to land properly (which I still don’t do very well on the A32NX), but sometimes (with Autoland, which I understand is working in the experimental version), you don’t even have to do that! I actually saw a video of it the other day, but I don’t know if the rest of us have access to that feature just yet, as I use the dev version, not the experimental.

And I haven’t tried the default version, but I’m getting more than adequate performance in VR with the dev A32NX, as measured by my eyes. They’re the only fps counter I use.

I beg to differ. I am an instrument rated private pilot IRL (but basically retired because of my disability), and I have some experience with simming in Boeings, but I definitely required instruction to properly setup and fly the A32NX. In fact, my instructor (@Fmgc320) might even be able to relate to you just how much I needed to learn to even as much as start the engines. Incidentally, he and I are working on an instructional video of the A32NX, and if we manage to pull something together that looks half way professional, will probably post it on YouTube at some point. IF.

Having said all of that, your point about “If the aircraft is too complex, people will simply not fly it” is precisely the point I’m trying to make in my overall message in this thread. Here’s how it plays out.

12-year-old John tells his parents he wants Microsoft Flight sim for XBox for his birthday present. They oblige, and get it for him. But he doesn’t care about any Cessnas or Pipers, or what the heck is a Pipi-WHAT??? No, he wants to “fly” a 747. He’s not interested in point-A to point-B flying, he just wants to fire it up, firewall the throttle (using the exterior view), and take off and fly around interesting scenery. He probably will even want to fly under bridges, so that’s something MS needs to fix before they go live with the XBox version, too.

But if John can’t fly something because it’s “too complex”, he’ll throw his controller across the room, tell his parents the game sux, they’ll try to get a refund if they can, and more importantly to the big picture, he’ll tell all his friends the game sux, and as a result they won’t even buy it in the first place.

This will result in a lot of lost business for MS/Asobo (except maybe replacement controllers, which of course neither Asobo nor us care about), which is bad for them, and bad for us.

That is why I think it’s important for the less complex aircraft to not only be in the sim in the first place, but continue to be available as separate aircraft even if they merge the WT CJ4 (or others) into the sim. So little Johnny can get in, get his “fix” flying a “747” around and tell all his friends how great the “game” is, and how they should get it, too. MS wins, Asobo wins, and little Johnny’s parents subsidize our enjoyment of the sim as serious simmers who like airliners that are “too complex to fly”.

I’ve said it before, and no doubt I’ll say it again, but as much as I personally think anyone who would want to fly MSFS on an XBox is nuts, it’s also an absolutely brilliant business move on MS’s behalf to offer it, as there is, despite what I think about it, a lot of pent up demand for this exact product, which will be met by huge and ongoing sales over the long term. There’s even an excellent chance that it will result in multiple sales for a single household, either because each kid has their own XBox, or even, as kids do, they just want their “own” copy of it, not their brother’s (or sister’s, as I hope this move attracts a lot of females into the flight sim world, and eventually aviation careers) “used” copy.

But that’s more than enough rambling from me, I have to email my instructor some info about a different flight I’m working on, and then work on that flight, and maybe even a few other things around here might need to be done that even my crippled a$$ can accomplish. And if not, then I can just fly some more… :wink:

My wife does say my primary job is to sit here and look pretty, so…

Have a lovely day!

@anon8513871, it’s not condescension, it’s simply reality. That is how many, if not most 12-year-olds are interested in using the “game”, as I explained in more detail in my other post above. Apologies if you took it the wrong way, I certainly didn’t mean it that way.

1.This is no proof that the FBW A320 doesn’t have a higher impact on performance than the default one. Again, there are various posts which indicate that the performance is lower.

2.You don’t differ. Read again what you’ve quoted from my post. Exactly that. You can’t fly the A320 successfully without Airbus knowledge.
This applies to the default ‘basic’ A320 as well.

3.There’s no difference between a study level ‘complicated’ A320 and the default one if you start on the runway with the engines running.
Simply firewall the throttles and off you go, no need to program anything.
Btw. this works in the real A320 as well.
That’s the advantage of a study level A320. You can use it in a very basic, game like way, or in a professional way.
Talking about games, flying the real one feels like playing ace combat.
The flight path stability coupled with the FBW system results in a completely disconnected operation of the aircraft and there’s no feel at all.

1 Like

Do you have a point? Or are you just itching for an argument? I’m not going to bother picking through your second or third list of bullet points until I understand just what it is you’re trying to accomplish, or what overriding message it is you’re trying to get across.

Looks like you are unable to comprehend what I wrote. Have a nice day, I’m out.

1 Like

Yes, I am.
I was being sarcastic. I forget that sarcasm doesn’t always translate in text.

My point was that the very fact that WT has been brought into the fold and the stated reason was their expertise with complex aircraft. WT’s new focus is to work on the default airliners and improve the accuracy and functionality of those systems.

To read this thread, one has to come to the conclusion that either the posters are not aware of the partnership or are ignoring it. Unaware, I get. To ignore the facts and precipitate the line that Asobo/MS have no interest in improving the airliners is just irresponsible.

Will they reach study level with the default aircraft? No, that has never been a goal. The fact that they acknowledged the shortcomings of the Garmin system and have stated that they misjudged the demand for that system to work is a testament to the fact that they are listening and have taken steps to rectify the shortcomings.


Does the fact that the 787 has electronic circuit breakers save any frames?!? LOL :wink: