I mean: Clear Skies preset, Turb low, Auto rudder and Auto everything, and Ctrl+E.
What more do you need?
I wonder what percentage of MSFS customers become dedicated hobbyists(?) Hobbyists meaning: the kind to buy addons and expensive flights sticks and work at settings and strive for realism. I would love to know what percentage they are compared to customers of MSFS who buy the base product only and fly with a game controller or the cheapest stick - and without intended criticism: expect instant kicks and no hassles.
I mean, we know where we stand individually, and as a result of that we have our own tastes, hopes and wishes for the future of flight simming.
Surely though, a lot of weight must be given to the business side of things in regard to OP’s concern for the casual user. If dedicated hobbyists are a small percentage of the total customer base for MSFS; then I doubt the hobbyist’s individual investment or expectations means anything at all at MSFS executive level.
I would love to be a fly on the wall at an executive marketing meeting.
It is irrelevant whether Xbox users are gamers or simmers: content should never be released that does not work properly with the Xbox controller unless it is very clearly stated in the store page that you need another type of input. I mean if it were up to me I wouldn’t allow that anyway: everything should be capable of being controlled with a controller.
And yet: exhibit A: atr.
Exhibit b: (to a lesser extent) dc-6
Do yourself a favour and get a mouse. That right there will alleviate most issues. But keep in mind that high end 3rd party planes are developed as all-out SIMULATIONS, not gamer planes. If those are the planes you’re complaining about when you want a gamer experience, you’re flying out of your self-imposed league. Capt Sim may be more your speed.
If you’re not willing or able to invest in proper controls for your simming, unfortunately, that’s on you.
I use the Xbox controller with a mouse and keyboard on PC. The compatibility and ease of use falls short (at times) of what should be a seamless and easy experience - It is simulator only in name and it should not exclude, or be any different if you use lesser hardware. It is about improving what is already available in-sim, not discussing or telling people they are excluded because they don’t use all the different peripherals. Also DO NOT tell casual users what they should or should not do as the answer, it is wrong.
They’ve made a lot of changes to it since launch. Even the AI Co-pilot has received some major updates and new functionality. If you think it’s bad now, you obviously didn’t experience how it was before. It’s not great now, but mostly works. It was plainly unusable prior.
If you could show me evidence of these HUGE improvements to the assistance options then I would like to see them, because as far as I know there has not been anything significant to fix problems when using the assistance options during flight. I have had the simulator since Day 1 - I know exactly how everything has been since launch.
Dream, Wish, Hypothesize, Create Elaborate and Complicated Discussions BUT In the End…
The direction MSFS takes will ultimately be controlled by : The REVENUE STREAM
I think what’s most important here is MSAsobo’s interpretation of gamers vs simulators because none of us are certain where this game/simulation will be in a year, or two, or five.
When MSFS first came out, my 12-year old nephew came over and gave it a try - the first thing he did was to crash into his house, then asked if he could get into a fighter jet and shoot something down. Of course that was to be expected. On his next birthday, his good old uncle bought him a copy for his own. Fast forward two years - so what does my nephew think of MSFS today? He never plays it. He’s playing some game I’ve never heard of and said he played MSFS maybe twice.
So the difference is I’m still pouring money into new airports and planes while his is sitting on the shelf collecting dust. Does MSAsobo want to make ME happy by creating new adventures/airports/planes that I’ll buy, or do they want that one-time purchaser? Clearly they would want both, but which group will make them the most money? THAT’S the key IMHO.
There’s a lot of discussion here for only 26 posts as I’m writing this, which I don’t have time to fully digest yet. So I’ll address the first two comments with my own thoughts and apologies if I’m re-hashing other replies.
I agree with this, but I would like to see more focus on piloting. The various assistants help a lot, but there are very minimal tutorials on even some of the basics of flying. I would love more in game tutorials of how to fly various aircraft, especially when it comes to working the aircraft systems and navigation. FSX did a pretty good job at this, if memory serves. When people ask about how to fly a certain default plane, and the common answer is “go look at the many YouTube tutorials,” you as a developer have done something very wrong. A player shouldn’t be expected to seek out third party answers like that, but it’s often the only way to get an answer.
Aiming for realism and immersion isn’t a bad thing, but the way you put it sounds like gate keeping and expecting developers to tailor a sim to a specific subset of users. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but it’s the impression I get. We all have to start somewhere. If simulators were only about absolute realism, where would new users get a start… Going for a real pilot licence first?
The only truly realistic sim I operated was a full motion trucking sim with a full size truck cab as part of training at a trucking company I worked at. It was a trucking version of the full size sim rigs commercial pilots train on, and I think developed in partnership with Lockheed Martin. I also play American Truck Simulator and happy with it even with all of its limitations. It’s also nice to do things in it I can’t do in my RL trucking job. I don’t see why MSFS has this subset of users that expect it to be on the same level as a professional sim. If this is your desire, I think the more appropriate course would be leaving MSFS as is and seeking out professional software instead (and paying the request increase cost that would go with it).
As for the return on investment, I think that is a backwards way of looking at it. It’s great Microsoft is open to to the add-on market (both mods and peripherals), but you shouldn’t buy into such things with any expectation that the sim will be adapted to make them run better in the future. We see this point made all the time when it comes to promised features and improvements to new products. Wise consumers know and advise not to buy based on promises because those promises often go unfulfilled. This is no different. Buy your add-ons based on what the sim can do now and any future improvements is just icing on the cake. Microsoft doesn’t really owe you anything beyond how well the base sim performs with stated system requirements and standard peripherals (mouse, keyboard, and/or a regular controller).
Besides, can you really expect the world at such a low price? I think what it offers is great for the most part. People can play it on Xbox or low end pc with a simple controller, all the way up to VR or fully mocked up home cockpits. Sure it has some core issues and bugs to work out, but it is playable for the most part by people across all skill levels. If you know nothing, you can still get in the air and knock the sticks around for fun. Any time I think I may be taking it too seriously, I think about how Microsoft doesn’t even take itself very seriously when it added the fictional Halo Pelican and Top Gun Darkstar as official first party aircraft.
The pelican is great but in a way it made me realise that the flight model of everything in the sim is pretty much fictional. At least with the pelican i don’t feel like it’s failing to live up to the real thing.
There are many quotes where Jorg has said “we’re making a Sim for Simmers”, and video as well. Right from the start.
With that in mind, they are creating a platform that must support advanced and complex systems. Physics, weather, flight models, etc.
Once the bar is set high to satisfy that goal, options are available to tailor the experience for all skill levels, both Simmer and Gamer. Instead of a broad Simulator/Game mode, we have individual settings for realism/skill level. Like turbulence, Assists, etc.
If it can handle the complex heavy stuff when called for, it can be tamed as needed.
It sure seems that Microsoft is aiming to cover the broad spectrum of skill levels.
I think the only real issue is when hardware limitations come into play (fixed memory size in Xbox vs expandable with PC). Or the obvious limitation of an Xbox controller and console UI design.
In theory this sounds on par with a lot of other software. But to be fair, a flight sim producer has a lot more work to do to answer a request for information like this. I think with complex games/sims that this is not an unreasonable requirement; that the user be required to do some research outside of the box. I would add that other complex software I have seen also require the user to research out of program. And this, these days, is not too difficult at all.
Could not disagree with you more. On the contrary, a lot of us enthusiastic airline simmers definitely feel a bit left out. Almost every Asobo / MS plane is fairly easy/down to all levels and typically a GA plane (vs a complex airliner).
Maybe I’m misunderstanding OP’s casual comment.
Glad today’s dev stream announcement about 787 getting working title advanced features makes me so happy.
They did it well in FSX in game tutorials. When you look at something like the official CJ4 manual (assuming you can find it), it is overly complex for the more casual users that enjoyed the plane prior to its update. I made a tutorial video on it, which wasn’t that hard. It was a little less than 2 hrs total length of recording time and minimal editing. It could be refined into something great with a little creative editing and polishing. Was it perfect? No, but it covered all the high points in a way that would give new/casual simmers the info they needed to get acquainted with the plane. Something like that, but linked from inside the sim to an official tutorial video wouldn’t be a ton of work. They could even outsource it like they have with Working Title on the update, but the key is making that easily digestible info available from within the sim.
Doing some independent research is one thing. Expecting all research to be done on your own for any software is simply unreasonable. I know it happens with other games, but that doesn’t make it right. That’s a large reason of why I gave up Minecraft, there was no info on exactly what I’m supposed to do.
If your premise is that all info should be independently sought out, now you are setting the user up for failure. It means relying on the user first knowing what to ask (the problem of not knowing enough to know what you need to learn), then relying on him to find the correct info among a sea of conflicting/outdated info, and then rely on that info to be presented in a way that is understood.
As a veteran simmer I’ll simply say that the impression I’ve been getting is that we’ve been pushed to the backseat in lieu of attracting new blood and marketing MSFS to the next generation. The first year or 2 of development when the game first came out I wouldn’t of had a problem with that and would of been expecting that. Going over almost 3 and half years now and a lot of the foundational features and expectations of what the FS franchise has always provided are still seemingly either being ignored, pushed down the list, or are just missing. A lot of other long term users have mentioned these things over the last year and months on here and we’re still seeing the focus towards new stuff and trying to attract new consumers. New ideas and new blood is always great and welcome but when you neglect the voices of those who have been with you since the early days or even the beginning, that’s bad business. Seems to be happening a lot where companies are pushing out veterans for the younger crowd because it is progressive.
I think this is where we depart in expectations and desires. I doubt I would enjoy listening to the Microsoft choice of flight instructor - in the past they have made me cringe. But that aside - personally I don’t expect it to be in the game at all. It seems pointless and unnecessary.
I didn’t say that at all, or anything like it.
What I was getting at was that the entire world of aviation, geography, meteorology, navigation, et al is a big chunk of information, and I don’t expect it to be all covered in the sim and by the sim.
IF I write a Word Processing Application, I do not expect to have to include in the documentation how to write, how to turn on a computer, how type on a keyboard, how to construct sentences, and how to use the correct words to express one’s meaning.
ie There is an expected level of competence assumed, when releasing such a application… so surely the same applies to a Flight Simulator Application ?
I could not have said it better.
With respect to what it is and what it does, I think MSFS has done a bang-up job.
If you don’t think the aircraft physics or modeling is good enough, I would heartily recommend X-Plane 12 or the latest release of Flight Gear.
X-Plane emphasizes realistic physics over an overall realistic experience, especially with regard to scenery. (It’s a common thread within X-Plane that the scenery looks best at 30,000’.)
Flight Gear, when last I used it, wanted to be the go-to choice for professional simms and anyone who wanted anything less than absolute, uncompromising realism was not welcome. Scenery? I never got that far.
I am glad that MSFS allows me to tailor the experience to meet my needs. Now, while I am fighting with my cockpit layout and crummy controls, I have many realism settings turned down so that the sim is, at least, usable. Later on as my rig improves, I can turn up the realism.
It’s like The Golden Age of Ham Radio in the 50’s and 60’s - you didn’t expect to reach other hams half way around the world on a single-tube set and a dinky antenna. As the rig got better, (and your skills improved), you could accomplish more.
I don’t expect MSFS to be any different. I appreciate its ability to “reach me where I am” regardless of where I might be, and grow with me as I grow.
Is it perfect? No. Does it meet my needs? Absolutely! Do I regret the money I’ve spent on it? As my ever expanding hangar attests, I think it was an excellent spending decision. (Then again, maybe not? 
)
You do you.
As for me, “Give me MSFS, or give me death!”
Yeah, I agree with that. 
I like your ref to “The Golden Age of Ham Radio in the 50’s and 60’s” as paralleling the early version of Flight Simulators.
Back then it was all about acquiring the knowledge to make the most of both items , and putting in the effort to learn to build up the systems yourself ..(Hand on) .. Now, with both Ham radio, and MSFS 2020, the more MONEY you can throw at it, (without necessarily doing any work or self education ) the more you can delude yourself in thinking that you are being successful.
As for this obsession for ever increasing FPS, at any cost – not even going there.
In MSFS, a higher FPS does NOT make you a better pilot vs 3rd Person Shooter games, where FPS does count towards your success.
I agree with the other two points, but i disagree with this one. I think there are many different types of players with different preferences in MSFS and that’s not entirely dependent on the platform they are on. I for one consider myself to be a part time casual part time moderately serious user. When I am messing about I prefer to pick something easy like the hjet, big radial goose, or a old war bird or default Cessna and fly around. Sometimes the f18 is also quite fun. And other times i take the time to set up a proper flightplan (not in msfs planner, but in plane itself) and follow proper procedures as much as possible. Sometimes i very much appreciate the deep systems simulations of fix example fenix or Leonardo maddogx or pmdg 737. But there are players who are very casual and like to fly darkstars and halo spaceships etc. And then there are players who are very serious who fly with vatsim, may be with a serious home cockpit setup. And MSFS caters to all these types of players.
Now there are different tools for different purpose. You cannot expect to operate a serious a machinary like a steam engine similar to a sports bicycle. If you want to fly casually, there are plenty of options to choose from. But some more serious high realism addons need to bypass certain msfs systems (because those have limitations) to create the more realistic systems they thrive to provide. Instead of blocking those add-ons from marketplace (imagine pmdg 737 being blocked from marketplace because it doesn’t work with the default planner), whats needed is a way for the customer to understand what the addon aims to achieve, who are it’s target audience, what does the user need to have to operate this thing properly etc. May be even a small TRIAL period. What good it would do to block all the serious add-ons from marketplace and thus Xbox and only have add-ons which can be operated casually? Aren’t there plenty of those add-ons too? And why would that casual player need to shell out $60 on a pmdg 737 if they are not going to operate it like its meant to be? They might as well buy the bredock3d version ( bad example, but let’s just assume they really want a 737). Same goes for airbus, that’s why there are airbus models from LatinVFR. Or they can purchase something middle of the road like hjet or vision jet or citation mustang or many other countless examples.
So to reiterate, blocking a set of high fidelity add-ons from marketplace is not the solution, picking (or buying) the right tool for the job is.
Absolutely!
Though I disagree with the idea that money = competence, because there is a certain amount of skill required to be a either a ham operator or a pilot.
There were, (and still are), plenty of examples of ham-handed punters with more money, (and fancy equipment), than brains; polluting both the ham and sim airways.
However, (IMHO), the OP’s argument was that MSFS is too exclusive, (by design?), and does not reach the needs of newer users, and this is an argument that I disagree with.
The main issue, (as I see it), is the userbase and its attitudes. Do we allow MSFS to degenerate into an elitist clique, or do we maintain an open minded attitude toward everyone, regardless of skill level or what they expect to achieve?
It can degenerate into an exclusive club of Flight Gear like people who disrespect the casual flyer - but the moderators go far and do much to counteract elitism.
We as the userbase, and primary spokespeople for the sim, should do no less. We should be holding forth the standard of welcoming inclusion to everyone, regardless of skill level or ultimate objectives.
If people want to fly with like-minded pilots who insist on absolute realism and operational excellence, there are many venues that support that.
We should also remember that not everyone has the skills, equipment, or money to be elite simmers, and we need to remember to make MSFS a welcome haven for them too.
What say ye?