Some reasons why I rate this game 2 out of 5 stars after playing for 9 months

Believe me Man i am really not far from parking it for a year.
Having to upgrade a pc like mine just for bad optimized Sim is not something i ll do and even tho it does not look like it would improve much.
i just hate the fact that i have to optimize and tweak and tweak again all day just to get to fly.
for info i do get 75/90 fps depending on area but constant stutter, camera in Vr is really unsatble / shaky.
Please remove the wind effect or correct it for Vr, it is so unrealistic, nothing compared with real life experience.
I don’t care if it hurts some to hear the truth but this is still very very far from a good sim, still a laggy game imo.
yes i know what we have on the market and even if its not better it at least is very flyable.
Comon evn DCS runs better lol.
Why on heart this the use TAA ???

1 Like

I think this game is good enough, althought it is true that satelital images are poor (specially in some places). Bing is not good enough compared to google maps (I have played Prepar3D with satelital photos and the result is way better in terms of representing the real world).

About drone camera… yes, it is something that I NEVER use. And external camera is not good enough, you can not even move your point of view (only zoom, that creates a big distorsion of the world).

The good thing is that this game is updated frequently and is getting better. It is good if you are interested in flying over some specific places. If the entire world was covered using Google Maps data, this game would be GREAT, and we could explore places that don’t know watching real world. But it does not happen.

1 Like

FYI, freelook. Same as you use in the cockpit. Works exactly the same in external view.

Temporarily closing topic as too many flags are being received.

Please be civil towards each other and keep the focus on MSFS.

This topic was automatically opened after 24 hours.

I was talking about the graphics, of course you can’t compare anything else with a FFS, don’t take it out of context.

Neither is sound great in an approved simulator, the throttle is basically a more noise - less noise selector.

The thing is FS 2020 is nowhere near being a level D sim. Pretty graphics and sound are not what makes a “level D sim,” a level D sim.

FS 2020 is FTD Level 6 at best. That’s not a bad thing. :slight_smile:

Yes I agree with that, but you are taking my post out of context. All I wrote was, that graphics, sound and AI are better than even the most advanced Level-D sim, nothing more. Which you seem to agree on, but somehow it was very funny:

I have even used simulators with Simulated ATC Environment (SATCE), AI is far behind.

Such a boring and unnecessary topic.
5 stars from me to MS/Asobo just for opening my eyes to the future of this wonderful hobby of ours.

7 Likes

Some realism would be nice. So far the only reliable thing this sim offers over the others is better scenery. The weather system is unreliable and downgraded, AI is broken with no departing aircraft, ATC is a mess and endlessly repeats commands for altitude changes, aircraft autopilot reliability is hit and miss and some are not able to complete a flight without CTDs. We still have lighting issues, including the sapia mask and road traffic is a joke for a 21st century sim too. Its not a 5 star product, in fact since SU5 it has gone down hill for PC users quite considerably.

It has enormous potential of course but for crying out loud lets call a goose a goose and call out the developers when the sim so obviously needs a lot of work to repair things that are still not working properly rather than pretending all is rosy.

3 Likes

Agree with cloud repetition. Notice this more and more when flying at high altitudes.

2 Likes

I guess my real problem with the sim is the fact that when you think you’re getting there, something happens with it. For the most part, I believe this sim is the the best one in terms of visuals as well as potential. I just don’t feel very thrilled when the actual basic stuff you need to make an actual flight successful doesn’t work when it was working great just a few days before. That is very discouraging because in reality I have to spent more time trying to figure out what the problem is rather than enjoy flying. For the most part my sim works well, but it seems that if I stop using it for a few days something happens, even if there are no updates during that time, that I’m aware of anyway, and I end up very frustrated, specially because it looks like now Asobo is either taken their sweet time to respond to support requests or not at all. As of now, I really have no complains about the way the sim looks (I really love that) but I think that issues that come out of nowhere, such as losing all avionics during flight, are a joy killer. I just wish I could actually spent my free time using this sim for its intended purpose rather than trying to fix the issues that didn’t exist to begin with!

4 Likes

It is discouraging and I have reached a point where I dread the updates because although I know something will have been improved I also now fully expect something else to have been broken.

2 Likes

Mind elaborating? While it’s been ages since I’ve used FSX I do use P3D and XP in addition to MSFS. Here is the kicker though, P3D and XP are pretty terrible in my opinion without addons of which I have a plethora of. From simple tools to very thorough aircraft, weather engines and scenery. I also have some very high end hardware from PFC. I’m not a casual simmer by any means and really do enjoy MSFS and yes, it does have it’s flaws currently but so do P3D and XP.

Let’s compare apples to apples here, when talking stock sims I really can’t see how FSX is superior to MSFS. I got FSX the day it came out (starting using the title with 98) and stopped using it around when P3Dv3 came around. With XP it was v9 but didn’t really start getting into it till v11. MSFS is a HUGE leap in what we have seen before in stock sims. Yes, even stock XP isn’t all that hot. If you use some of the third-party 172s (I have two) which are miles better than the LR one or use the Zibo mod which it too is miles better than the LR one you will definitely notice this. It really does take addons.

FSX/P3D doesn’t come close to MSFS stock. You must throw a ton of addons onto it and even then it’s up for debate. Ever notice how when people try to throw shade at MSFS it’s almost always screenshots of sims that are loaded to the brim with addons?

You want to know what MSFS is in dire need of and they’re coming? More addons. In fact what is going to determine weather or not I get XP12 will be the state of the addon scene in MSFS when XP12 releases.

Something I would like to add is I always find it funny when people say that MSFS is good for nothing but VFR flying. I’ve flown under IFR in hard IMC on VATSIM a number of times in the 152 with the great JPLogistics mod. Not much scenery to look at, lol.

2 Likes

What MSFS is in dire need of is the existing systems to be fixed. At that point they can add features and scenery but the basics have to be right.

Even the most simple thing, differences in drag when taxing across different surfaces at an airport are non existent in the aircraft I use in this sim. That’s a basic requirement for realism to me, having to alter power to move across rough grass, having to decrease power when it changes to smooth tarmac. Some seem to think this sort of thing isnt important but to me this is the difference between a simulator and a casual game, realism and as much of it as we can get within reason.

1 Like

Taxiing aircraft has never been that great in XP nor FSX/P3D…

XP (which many proclaim to be the Holy Grail of sims) has problems with taxiing. Get yourself a SimCoders aircraft (I have three) and you will be able to tell how much better it is. Also, in FSX/P3D you can check out A2A aircraft, I love taxiing the 172. I have a pair of rudder pedals that cost me $850.

Good post.

But at least drag is simulated in XP 11, its darn sight better than it is in FS.

It’s exaggerated.