Summary of missing items in MSFS, important to realistically simulate flight

Pointless statement. Are you one of those people who think that the Asobo dev team are only capable of working on one thing at a time? Exercise some patience. The SDK will be eventually be finished.

I don’t mean it in a wrong way, all I’m saying is that some issues needs knowledge to understand and therefore will never get enough votes, separate threads or not. By the way, most of the info in my post are copies from already existing posts added with some background information.

I’m happy the audience is broad hopefully sufficient income will be generated to keep developing this software. Some people are interested in the visuals, some care more about a realistic simulator. “No pilot left behind” means that also this side of the spectrum needs to be told, although maybe not the most popular. Or in your own words, people buying this product as a realistic flight simulator are paying costumers just like you and me :+1:.

Maybe Asobo will read this thread, maybe they won’t, at least I’ve put the more technical stuff together which is not getting the attention it deserves. Hopefully it gets some more attention via this channel and directs people to those separate threads. Its all I can do besides reporting via Zendesk.


What do you mean by issues with VFR flying? I don’t think there is much wrong with it. Most issues are indeed IFR related.

There isn’t any complaining about default aircraft or is there? I have some doubt about the flight model. But thats only one point in my long essay…

Majority of it comes from the nit-picking at overall minor things as such:

  • “Copy”, “copy that”, “ready to copy”, “would like” are meaningless, it is “roger” or “request”

‘…ready to copy…’ is not meaningless. There’s more than one way to say it based upon dialects. Narrowing it down to minimal choices just makes the experience toilsome honestly.

  • VFR departures are not to the “north”, “south” etc. they are via VFR routes and reporting points, although I guess this is difficult to implement.

Never heard of this. I’ve always heard name of the field + aircraft calling + VFR intentions to be listed exactly as such. ‘VFR routes’? Never heard someone say what VOR’s and fields they’re going to overfly on the last airspace departure call.

  • All the pulp at the end of the ATIS like, “inform you have information …”, “readback instructions” are all meaningless, just cut it out.

Do what? I’ve read your post and I get the sense that you may fly commercial IRL, but I don’t understand how you just trample over something so simple as this?

  • ATC won’t tell you where the airport is and how many miles in the approach clearance. They assume you know where you are in relation to the airport. They might pass you the track miles to go to plan descent.

Again this is dependent upon the controller and region you’re flying in.

Like I said, mostly VFR related as it’s my only interest IRL and in sim, and in the current condition of the sim it’s not exactly as proficient of an IFR training aide as that of P3D is. Doing away with/changing some of these is mostly pointless overall however I don’t see what you’re basing it off of to justify the changes, when (IME) it’s mostly valid for the type of flying I do.

Well there is a big difference between US and EU. I was pointing out the phraseology differences with standard ICAO phraseology here, the EU is pretty close to ICAO (as is most of the world) the US isn’t thats why they should make regional sound packs. I did make one for Europe myself:

If they would adopt standard ICAO phraseology it would be much closer to real world phraseology for most of us (the US might not benefit that much from it maybe).

I might have assumed some things as being the same all over, like the VFR departures and the missing ATIS essay might be something European.

  • So ICAO does not use the phrase “ready to copy” the same way MSFS does, ATC might use this phrase to confirm the receiver is “ready to copy” a lengthy clearance or instruction but not vice versa. The response should be “go ahead”, in the UK they use the in my opinion more appropriate phrase “pass your message”, but this isn’t ICAO I believe.
  • VFR departures, probably only European? Its to hard to implement all the VFR reporting points anyway so this is never gonna happen.
  • ATIS, again in Europe don’t come with all the pulp at the end. Its the weather as you are used to up to QNH, airport related messages as WIP and other cautions / warnings etc. followed by “End of information …”. Its standard to include it in initial contact with ATC unless otherwise stated as is reading back and following instructions, pretty useless to add this to the ATIS, they might add as well “don’t forget to breath” :upside_down_face::joy:.
  • I was talking about an IFR approach clearances. Maybe for VFR flights it makes more sense but here its not common to receive direction + distance to the airport either unless asked for. The controller telling you for every instrument approach where the airport is, thats nonsense.

This is the closest I can get to correct ICAO phraseology in MSFS with some regional differences leaning to the European side but overall pretty close to standard ICAO phraseology:

will probably not get this before a long time. Asobo is still looking for developers on this area as can be seen on this job opportunity posted late october

1 Like

US ATIS does typically include the extra verbiage at the end. At my local airport, the last two statements in the broadcast are always: “Read back all hold short instructions” and “Advise controller on initial contact you have information (current ATIS letter).

Exactly like in MSFS, so that seems accurate then. Europe is generally as below:

The visibility above 10 km and wind from both touchdown zones is specific for Innsbruck though.

It appears they based it on US practice. A few years ago, US ATC finally adopted the ICAO standard phrasing of “line up and wait” instead of “taxi into position and hold”. I have not used the built in ATC in MSFS, hopefully they are not still using the obsolete phrase.

They are using old phrases, nothing has changed since FSX… Including “ready for take-off” which is really toe-curling.

This game is made to sell on XBOX. Make no mistake, a niche market simulator is not nearly as appealing as something that looks pretty that can be throw up on the XBOX store that will let you “find your house”.

It’s the community that will have to make this more simulation focused/accurate.

I would vote for all the OPs recommendations if I could and I suggest many more would too, more than you might think. I fully agree the flight model should be as accurate and as near to real life as possible, it’s at least as important as the eye candy stuff if not more so.

The worst thing they kept from FSX is the bully in the tower.

“turn next taxiway” … “exit runway when able” … “turn next taxiway”

It sucks, especially when you land short in a GA plane and have some time before you get to the next turn-off.

Yes, I am trying. Stop pestering me! For gods sake.



sorry i do not agree. Asobo has promised a new Gen sim, we pay Money for the sim -> Asobo has to deliver. it is not our fault that the sim and its aircrafts have so many issues. the community does a lot and this is great but responsibilitry of the comunity ? no.


Ok I did update my thread and made single threads for every individual item now. Please vote these items up! Thanks!


The whole “find your house” soundbite has been proven to be both true and false in equal measure depending on where you live.



The basics must be implimented well in the core sim and implimented consistently.

How long will the community build and rebuild nice roofs when the walls keep falling down?


Updated in accordance with recent updates and yesterdays developer Q&A session.

1 Like

I say, not even the Asobo programmers know how the flight model actually works. Proof: the quality of Asobo flight models. We all have to learn how the cfg files parameters and the 3D model (1000 surfaces) interact in MSFS 2020 in detail.
The “legacy” flight model is a castrated “modern” flight model. Proof: Convert a FSX airplane. Tune it to good flight model under MSFS 2020 “legacy”. Copy the found values back to the FSX airplane and look what you get.
On the bright side: The combination of cfg parameters and 3D model gives us stall, spin, inverted flight, edge knife flight and hopefully more flight envelope “corner cases”. I like this.
I think we as community shall share our findings. Maybe even some payware 3rd party developer leak some of their discovered insights (yes, I am a dreamer).