It already does. The NXi, that is.
you have not tried the flyiron spitfire, yo cannot fullthrottle for long or boom goes the engine.
the point is not many players want this kinda realistic behaviour.
What i really miss is the dreaded “base to final stall” that only A2A can do. Also I miss engine managment for GA planes that only A2A can do(microsoft platforms)… Other than that GA is pretty good even in default planes under normal flight envelopes…
A blown engine feature does not a complex aircraft create.
A fully operational supercharger and fully modeled carburetor system and all the other systems a Spitfire pilot had to deal with is what some people are looking for. To me, the question really is asking about when we’ll see something like a King Air with every single system modeled. I don’t believe MSFS is up to that at the moment.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining in any way shape or form here. I’m completely happy with what MSFS can do at the moment, and it sure seems like they are working towards supporting the development of fully defined complete aircraft systems support.
2 Likes
I haven’t. I do have the MilViz Corsair however, and you need to treat that aircraft correctly or your flights will be very short.
However, the OP was discussing GA aircraft… so I left out warbirds, with only a passing mention of the DC-6…
G1000 MFD is quite limited (PFD is ok). VNAV doesn’t work, no weather radar yet (NEXRAD is ok for now) PT6 logic needs work. Doesn’t matter if the inertial separator is on or off. It also doesn’t effect engine torque that much. Kodiak ITT spikes at around 450 (from memory) during startup which is way too low. No engine or airframe damage with reckless use, just the over speed stress damage. No maintenance required, it’s always in show room condition. I guess what I’m saying is that even if everything is set to hard in the menu before flying you’d be hard pushed to screw anything up. I’m also not a fan of switches that do nothing and are just for show, I just don’t see the point?
I think I like the Arrow because you can fly with the radio stack and it’s a pretty basic plane…but then you find out that the VORs aren’t working today so you can’t navigate. Or you open the small pilot window at 60knts and the aircraft fails due to over stress. That’s the same as me opening the sunroof on my car. There is lot of work to be done and I’m sure they’re on it but it’s not the glorious sim from their sales pitch over a year ago. It is very pretty though.
Hit the nail on the head.
I like the DC6 but it’s too big for me. I’m watching for the 310 release, I did have it in XP and thought it was a nice plane. Not the best but pretty good.
Only for reference, it doesn’t work as it should.
I wonder when the first sim plane will be fitted with Garmin auto land?
1 Like
100% agree, I don’t get what the OP is exactly talking about.
I flew the Arrow in MSFS a lot, and recently, a friend of mine invited me to fly it in real life. I had no problem flying it and I had the same sensations I had while flying it in MSFS.
I even made a video in my youtube channel of the flight.
MSFS is a great platform for simming and some payware planes look and behave as close to reality as you will ever have in a flight sim. If you want something more real you might need to use a professional simming machine like the ones they have in flight clubs for training, that is expensive though.
1 Like
I like the Arrow and it’s my most used plane….not sure how times I can repeat that.
2020 is a new and fundamental change in the way we sim and as such is far from perfect and definitely not as close to reality as you will ever get in a flight sim.
The G1000 NXi does have working vnav, and not just for reference; it works fully as it should. You can fully couple the flight director / autopilot to it, and you can edit/create your own altitude constraints. Approach mode on a compatible approach will generate (and couple to) a glidepath that’ll take you down to LPV mins.
There are still features missing from the NXi, but they’re mostly quality-of-life additions. All the important functionality is there now.
Most of the rest of what I’m seeing folks mention isn’t really what I’d consider “complexity”; things like a damage model for operating an engine out of parameters for instance. Heck, level D sims don’t have that, the engines will happily sit in the red all day with no consequences (unless the instructor manually triggers a fire/failure event.) I can see why some would find it fun for those sorts of things to be auto-triggered by MSFS, but they’re not really relevant to a properly working airplane.
I guess to me, complexity is an airplane with systems depth (vs unfunctional switches), and a believable flight model. I can nitpick every airplane I use in the sim (and every plane I’ve ever used in any previous sim), but I think we’ve got some good birds now. The DC-6 is great for sure, but not really GA. The Working Titles CJ4 struck me as pretty good. The Arrow… what doesn’t work? The Kodiak is a new fave, though I find the flight model mod helps quite a bit in a few specific areas (and I wish the EPL worked). Heck, the stock Bonanza with the turbo-normalized engine mod (mostly for Rob Young’s excellent flight model) is really good.
I doubt any sim will ever have the “perfect” airplane. I loved the A2A birds but I could find a fault or two with every one I ever tried, for instance.
I wonder if it would be possible to create a 3rd party addon that added the “mishandling” damage mod to all your airplanes, or at least the popular ones? External apps like Neofly can trigger failures… so could an app monitor engine or G exceedances and then trigger failures / faults? Might be fun.
If the NXI has a working VNAV then that’s news to me. Last time I flew it was for reference only and to my knowledge there hasn’t been any updates.
Level D simulators may not have engine damage but home PC sims have offered that option and I think it’s absolutely relevant. I agree that complexity is systems depth but that includes non functional switches (which are part of the systems).
I’ll reference the 4 year old TBM 900 on XP once more (I don’t care about the platform, its just reference). In fact, I’ll quote from their site because we’re kinda going round in circles here…
————————————
The main objective for Hot Start was to create a product that not only simulated beautiful artwork and intense systems simulations, but also to be a learning platform for its pilots. You will become intimate with the knowledge of the PT-6 engine, the costs of maintenance for over-time wear & tear, and how flying specific ways may harm or help the aircrafts longevity.
Systems & Avionics
The avionics include a custom simulated G1000 complete with Synthetic Vision. It’s not just “there”, it actually requires you to properly use the avionics at your disposal or risk harming the aircraft! Everything specific to a TBM 900 is there, and from a systems perspective the small but important nuances are there to a degree never seen before!
From the ground up, the avionics simulation has been focused on heavy use of modern multi-threaded CPUs and fluidity. Each custom subsystem, such as the weather radar, TAWS and engine indication systems, to name but a few, is coded to run in its own set of threads and interact with the rest of the avionics in an asynchronous manner. This has allowed us to assemble the aircraft without the usual balancing act of trading graphical fidelity for simulator frame rate.
The attention paid to the physical simulation of systems is second to none. For example, the aforementioned weather radar isn’t just a pretty display that scans across a pre-existing weather map. It really does simulate radio beam propagation, energy absorption, scattering and reflectivity. What comes out on the display represents the output of a complex ballet of physical calculations. When you turn up the radar gain, the radar really does alter the way it samples its input beam returns.
Aerodynamics
Huge efforts have been put into the flight and engine model of this aircraft, which was one of the first things that we started working on over a year ago. The results are both impressive and amazing, and this was thanks to one of our beta team members who owns a TBM 900 and our developer was able to get real flight time in the aircraft. Beyond this, we also made the aircraft available to other owners and pilots of the aircraft to get their feedback and get the hand flying experience just right.
A Personality of Its Own
From the start, we have been focusing on making the aircraft “feel” like a real machine. And if you have dealt with real aircraft, you will know that they can be moody at times. Sometimes the engine starts on the first try, sometimes it just seems to want to drag its feet. Other times, you come up to the aircraft and the battery is strangely low, so you need to sit on the ramp after engine start a bit longer to let it charge up. While working on the core systems model in the TBM900, we have taken a great deal of time to focus on getting this kind “personality” coded into the aircraft.
————————-
1 Like
I… guess you have experienced news, then? The NXi has had fully working vnav for at least several months now.
The TBM marketing text doesn’t sound any different to me from any other aircraft ever sold in any simulator. Things like damage models always feel gamey and gimmicky to me. I understand why they might be fun, but I don’t see it being synonymous to “complex.” I think a fair definition of “complex” is that the important systems work as they’re supposed to. It seems like GA is mostly there in MSFS. What we need now are some airliners… cmon PMDG ;).
1 Like
Please explain, then, what you think “doesn’t work as it should”.
If by “only for reference” you mean that VNAV cannot be couple to the A/P, you’re just wrong, plain and simple.
I disagree with every statement here.
Then I stand corrected. The last time I used it, it definitely did not couple to the autopilot.
You may be thinking of the G3000 mod, which is advisory VNAV only. The NXi has had coupled VNAV since the very first release.
1 Like
That must have been quite a while ago. 
Here’s a video from Jul 30th demonstrating it:
To be fair, VNAV climb didn’t work reliably at that point, but this should have been fixed now as well.
A lot of those sims aren’t as good as MSFS. The graphics are typically horrible, and, really, of the ones I’ve tried, the flight dynamics in MSFS are better (granted, I have only used a couple. No point in paying for sim time when you can fly for real 
Although, I suppose if I was building hours for my instrument I’d do it for that to save money.).
1 Like